If we're banning cars, we need more mixed use spaces, too. I won't ever feel the need for a car if I could work, shop, and live in an area where all three are within walking distance of one another.
As a European the fact that is not the standard seems crazy to me, like who thought it would be a good idea to seperate all these things? Oh, wait the car industry did. (And the people building highways, too.)
Auto industry are the ones who benefit, and want to keep urban sprawl happening. R1 (single family homes) zoning is the the reason you can't live and work in the same place. Most cities in the US have like 70+% R1 zones. Nothing commercial can be built. Not even a coffee shop.
A frightening thing I noticed when going to New York was that the ambulance couldn't get around. There were too many cars. Imagine if we could have empty ambulance routes.
I've watched people get outta the way for an ambulance and somebody goes "ohh!! Y'all moved just for ME???? Awww thank you " and pull in front of the ambulance and not go a fast speed. Also yesssss first responder routes!!!
I'm Dutch and I always cycle everywhere I go, even if I have to cycle one hour to go to school and another to go back. It's good to exercise and it's completely free, aside from the bicycle of course.
@@TBMVD hell yeah 👍 here in Indonesia, roads are most highly dangerous and the public transportations are all suck. We both living dangerously by driving or even just walk along the pedestrian 😅 bike? Don't even think about it
@@crazystupidbeanye but ain’t no one gonna drive like that. And it hurts because officials are gonna go like, “oh, ain’t nobody using these painted gutters, guess we don’t need this bike lane after all!” and just merge it all to make more space for cars. I so wanna bike to get to school because I don’t believe I’m responsible for a car. And yet these streets are so dang dangerous that I’m practically forced to drive to get anywhere
You don't have to ban cars. It just needs to be possible to not be dependent on one. Basically: 1. Copy Japanese zoning laws which allow small shops, barbers, restaurants etc. to be build around residential areas within walking distance. 2. Build cycling infrastructure like they do in the Netherlands, especially in areas where public transport is cost-prohibitive. That's it. As long as you can easily access daily necessities without a car, the majority of people stop using them on their own because they're so expensive. Even more interestingly, car enthusiasts should actually want this because the small percentage of people who will still have or want to drive would experience less traffic and less road rage. Would also improve the economy because products get faster from A to B. Also allows ambulances and other protective services to move around more quickly. Everyone would win, well, except those who profit from the current horrible infrastructure.
People keep thinking that people driving are idiots. As a father of 2 whenever i need to haul the small bastards around the main issue with NOT using a car is the sheer inconvenience of it all. Whenever I am on my own or just travelling with my daughter it is easy to take the bus, but if we need to have the stroller for the baby and my wife is also coming it suddenly makes more sense to just pack everyone in the car and get moving. When public transport options are actually good the car doesnt move. For instance I used to work in a different city where I had to drive there on a Monday, and between then and Friday when i would drive back to my home town the car would just stay parked and I would be on a subway. People really dont LIKE paying for cars but there are good reasons for why they do and it has more to do with how the cities themselves are being run than the individual himself.
@@axelfiraxaplenty of bicycle trailers on the market are capable of carrying kids that cost substantially less than a used car AND aren't significantly less convenient for short trips. Once the kids are old enough for their own bicycles it is already pretty common for children in the US to have bicycles. I don't find helmets less convenient than seatbelts, and using properly designed bicycle infrastructure is significantly safer than driving.
For Americans, it's difficult to go carless (at the moment that is) because of the gross zoning and land use practices. You can't drive to the store without having to drive all the way there. You can't just walk down a block, pick up a few things that you need, and go back home. And that's why it's so hard to give up cars in the US then Europe; where a lot of older cities have mixed zoning and land use. To begin on limiting the use of cars (I think banning is extreme and takes away personal freedom of choice) Americans need to fix how the land is used and zoned. Only then will we be able to walk to the hardware store and nail a civil engineer to a cross.
fuck freedom, shit has too many downsides lmao- banning cars, guns and forcefully taking *fully tested* vacines might take away your sum of your freedom but it would save millions of lives... but that would be too hard for you would'nt it :((( your fReEdoM is more important than millions of lives innit. also i get your point with the zones btw- i was'nt rlly talkin specifically too you just ventin to all the twats out there lol
@@monkeyman321 100%, as long as your humanity is'nt takin away, you can be a indevidual, you can choose from many careers and everyone is treated equally. its all about balance
Banning isn’t extreme when cars cause to much damage to human life and the climate. What’s extreme is not helping humanity prosper and not addressing climate change. Cars can’t be banned everywhere due to how terrible US infrastructure is but I believe it’s needs to start being banned the urban centers of the largest cities in the US and build from their public transportation and over time more areas will ban cares and become pedestrian/bike friendly, which gives more space, better quality air, and help many small businesses.
Considering how many people die trying to navigate two dimensions in a regular car, it's a good thing we don't have flying cars with an extra dimension.
@@katiea.1995 no, well technically yes, but I’m just an autistic prat. Although I am an environmentalist, my main reason for choosing trains is just because I have a hyper-fixation on them
Banning cars for cities seems like a good first step because I cant imagine banning cars for rural areas any time soon, its almost a necessity over there.
Exactly The needs of the countryside man are different to those of the city. transportation, living, even personal security, are primarily reliant to the individual rather than the public, as everything is very far from us. Transitioning to public transportation in the city centers and adjacent areas? Yeah, totally doable, even like it is now. Transitioning to public transportation in the countryside? Not happening
@@riograndedosulball248 Roads are heavily subsidised, as well as all the other facilities that need to be extended to reach low-density areas. If people who lived rural actually paid for these costs most of them would move and you'd probably only have farmers left
I've been to a lot of citites around the world, and I've noticed a kind of "universal rule" of cities: the more car friendly a place is, the shittier it is to be. A park is a better place to be than a parkway, but it works at every stage in-between as well. There is almost no place that can't be made better by making it less car-friendly.
For people who say "I lived in the middle of nowhere and the nearest shop was 1 hour of driving". This video pretty much says to reduce car usage within urban areas and cities. Cars used in desert areas like this are not a problem at all, it's the huge largely populated suburban areas with thousands of cars and constant traffic that are the problem
Europeans clearly do not know what it is like to live in an American or Canadian city if they think this is a valid criticism. Less than 15% of people in a N.A. city can get rid of their car and rely on public transit, and most of those who can are rich people who live downtown and are always going to own a car anyway "just in case". For the other 85%, the only way transit makes sense is if they can afford to spend 2-3x longer commuting than the 0.5-1.5 hours they already spend, and if they'd actually save enough on parking and gas to use transit for their daily to-and-from-work commute.
I live in New York where cars essentially are second class citizens, and when I’m leaving work at around five there are hour long traffic jams to cross a 3000 foot bridge, meanwhile I zoom through it on the subway. So by that point I don’t really care about being on crowded train bc I get home almost half an hour faster then a coworker who lives near me
"buying a bus ticket twice a day" Well, here is one of your problems, a price model that actively discourages public transportation utilization. Here in Budapest you can get a monthly ticket for a flat price with unlimited utilization (for about 60% price compared to 2 line tickets every work day). Also we have a bike rental service for about £11 _a year_ where the first 30 minutes of every journey is free. Yeah, everything is crumbling here, but at least the public transportation pricing scheme is figured out!
I am a car guy, and I strongly support this. For any car guys around. 1. There will be less drivers around. When we do drive were we can, it will be much more comfortable. 2. Those that will choose to drive, presumably will do so because they enjoy it. Hence, better drivers around. 3. Who actually enjoys driving in big congested cities? We can drive outside cities and on circuits. 4. We get all the benefits that non-car lovers get.
I agree. I like driving too but you know what completely depletes the experience? Traffic. This solves the traffic problem. And let’s everyone get to where they need to faster, even if cars are rerouted and need to drive more/further. It does benefit everyone it loads of ways.
Having a car myself( Lexus is200), and being a car guy I rarely use the car to go anywhere, in my region public transport is 20€/Month for everyone under 26 and is 6€ a month for everyone over 65 and I can go anywhere by train ,metro, bus and tram. Everyday when I go to college instead of spending 45 min in my car having to pay attention to the road, i spend 45 minutes in a bus where I can sleep,or see the phone. I use my car to chill at night where I can't sleep l, take my friends to dinner or cinema and go to some car meets and I enjoy the car a lot.
I'm not saying you're wrong those would be great things, but I think you're naive if you don't at least consider those eco-facist cunts won't try to ban or tax cars away.
@@kersacoft If your logic is: We should not do something we agree would be beneficial to almost everybody, including ourselves, because it will then be more likely that the law will go to far, then we should be talking about political reforms or leaving to go abroad. Because such a fear is nuts. If something must be done, it is done. I don't see how Eco-fascists will take over, at least in my country. Which for all it's problems, is at least good at preventing any one political group of pushing laws without consent of most of the population. Btw, a tax on cars should almost by definition exist. I don't think there is one microeconomics book that doesn't use cars as an example of negative externality that should be internalised. These taxes already exist, so maybe tax on cars may increase of a small degree, a complete ban however is absurd. Cars will still be necessary, at least for the foreseeable future, to travel to any rural area, and still to perform many jobs within and outside the cities. I doubt delivery guys will ever use public transport. They will continue to speed in Vespas around the cities.
@@leonardodavid2842 I'm not saying our hobby should be above the common good of mankind, just that I doubt once most people won't need cars anymore that they'll let us exist in peace, many people don't support freedom they don't use. Eco-fascist was just an insult.
I'm a car guy, I'm one of those guys the EPA hates. Ironically while I like a loud or fast car every now and then, I would rather live in a community similar to the Netherlands, where car speed is limited with smarter city planning, and driving is less of a requirement, but more of a want and desire.
Car ownership in rural areas (assuming EVs only) is fine as long as car owners are actually willing to pay their fair share. The problem is making car owners pay the real cost of all the infrastructure they require would make it so that many people would not be able to afford cars anymore as we excessively subsidize road infrastructure. I think in the future cars should be banned within city limits, be extremely limited in suburban areas, and allowed in rural areas, BUT car owners will have to pay large ownership taxes & property taxes on those who live rural would be raised to cover their infrastructure costs. If car ownership really does come down to "I want to own one because I like it more even if I have other options" then it shouldn't be the government's job to fund that hobby.
@@oscardighton8580 True, but cyclists could also use a vastly cheaper (to build) bike road and they don't wear down the roads. The difference in insurance makes sense since cyclists don't have the same propensity to kill people, nor are there so many other externalities for them to cover.
@@oscardighton8580 You should look up the stats to maintain cycling paths - Wearing of asphalt is not linear with weight and the cost of servicing cycle infrastructure barely even comes close to the billions and billions spent on maintaining the highway systems. So no cars don't subsidize cycling infrastructure( Also you need to remember it isn't "cars" subsidizing anything, it's the government that chooses where funding goes and that money comes from taxpayers' pockets).
We don't need to ban cars. Just minimize car dependency Edit: seens like i accidently started a war. Yes you can live somewhere non car dependent, but let's face it, you STILL NEED a car for daily jobs like buying groceries or taking someone to the hospital on emergencies ( its a much more available option if you live in a country where you have to PAY for an ambulance) So yea, car dependency is bad but we must be very careful about how we're supposed to fix it
@@durece100AND logistics, I can see how they are delivering my brand new wardrobe with tram. I actually love trams and other public transport and use it in Poland all the time, they are amazing and like only 20 bucks per month to travel as much as I want here in Krakow
Car’s should definitely have way less dependence, but it would have to be done precisely considering many rely on cars to reach far away jobs, and need cars during the winter
For me, the biggest downside to not having a car is that it limits how much it is to comfortably carry with you. Luggage, musical instruments, other kinds of equipment etc. Otherwise I'm pretty happy about living without a car.
With a cargo e-bike you can carry as much as you could in your car. You can travel on your own and leave whenever you want with a simple bike or with a high frequency transport network. Plus do you really need those things on an everyday basis ? Cars can do the most, but most of the time it's like destroying a sand castle with a bulldozer.
@@Mrrraaou Yeah, a smaller vehicle makes more sense if you don't need a car on a daily basis - and I don't. Renting a car on the occasion I need it would be an option if I had a license.
This is a big problem, all the politicians who speak about "no cars in 2050" and so on totally forget about all the people living on the countryside. Like how am I supposed to be able to get food and other necessities when the closest store is many miles away, and if there even are busses the closest stop is very far away and the busses are very infrequent, like 1 in the morning and 1 in the evening. Cars are still needed, there is no way they'll be able to build railroads or bus lines to satisfy the needs of people in very rural areas in the coming decades
My favourite part of this video as someone that is learning Chinese was your joke about bikes being foot-powered cars, which is the literal translation for bike in Chinese :)
@@paintedfingernail2308 Good point! 车 means car, but also means vehicle and originally was the term for wheeled carts/chariots etc. its also used with other characters to mean bus or taxi etc. But cars are now the most common wheeled vehicle so I guess are what is assumed when you say it.
@@paintedfingernail2308 what's rad is Chinese phrases are generally made up with words to give literal meanings because the language is so syllabically condense. A motor car is a "gas car", a bus is a generally called "public gas car" depending where you're from, a train is a "fire car", a tram is an "electric car", an ambulance is a "save protect car", a taxi is a "rent out car". People say Chinese is hard to learn, in some ways yes, but in English you're learning a completely different word for all these things.
Cities for sure, but ownership should be voluntary. Banning cars or enforcing arbitrary limits on things is not very liberal in the slightest. Say no to eco-fascism.
@@gurumage9555 "Less people will be saved"??? I don't know if you're in favour of regs or not hahaha... Anyway.. Regulations are already strict enough. Regulation stifles innovation to the point you get no improvement. There are very efficient engine designs that likely won't see the light of day and Porche's SynFuel and Konningsegg's Freevalve tech that won't see widespread use because of such things. EVs are a scam. Only good for buses and taxis in cities. Good quality fuel with LPG/CNG and Hydrogen internal combustion as other options (especially for road haulage and plant machinery) is the _correct_ way forward. But no no, it makes too much sense for politicians to do such things. Improving city transport links would take cars off the road voluntarily, reduce car idle times (decreasing wear) and mean you can reduce road volume and size over time in a gradual and slow change. Bringing down the ban hammer on something because Gretta said "HOW DARE YOU" and Elon offers you some weed is asinine and crippling.
For what it's worth, when I went onsite to a customer in Germany, I actually loved the convenience of walking / tram / train compared to literally having to drive everywhere despite living in a significant American city. Way less stressful. Lost a bunch of weight without trying. And no one trying to run me over on a daily basis.
Can't tell if this video is serious or not, it's so mentally deranged that it seems like a joke video, but at the same time it's missing the most important component of a joke video, the funny
I’m an European student. I pay 50€ for a bus card every September, it lasts a year. I spend 50€ a year to take a vehicle, with air conditioning, seats and a driver, which would be almost the same as getting carried around by my parents. The difference is that I can take the bus wherever and whenever I want to.
...Wherever and whenever your wishes are scheduled by the transport services... I mean... there are places where you could only go twice a week taking the bus at 9:00 and paying what they tell you to pay.
@@antonioalonso2986 that's not quite the case for me, my city is almost entirely covered buy bus stops to the point that it's hard to be farther than 200m from a bus stop.
@@Iknowthismeme that's it: it is not your case... but I think it's an error to legislate from particular's point of view without considering the necessities of the rest of the society. Now our authorities consider car owners are evil citizens that use cars to have fun carelessly to polute and damage everybody... and happily pays what goverments want them to. But... be careful what you wish because it may turn real... I mean taxes leived to cars have a good thing that is they are only payed by those who use cars... but... if no cars... our governments wont reduce their budgets for sure so they'll increase any other to compensate, so people will end up paying more for "living" in places. Another thing I'll like to add is that it's very easy to record damage and polution (I wont discuss this, as it's true they damage and polute)... but it's very difficult to record the beneffits they contribute to society, or at least few people care for those stats, but I'm sure the do more good things than allow personal movement freedom. Regards
@@antonioalonso2986ofc cars will always be needed for people who live in really low populated areas, but here in my country we have these park&ride places where there are massive parking garages with a dedicated tram,bus and sometimes even train stops. It’s for people who want to go to another city so that they can still drive if they need to but once you enter the suburbs of that city you’ll have a easy transfer to multiple tram/bus lines most that come every 5-10 minutes
"long stretchy car" earned you a subscriber. I'm not a full on "ban cars" guy, and I know the title is semi-clickbait, but driving should be an option and not a necessity
@@Maxzes_ Dubai is a fucking joke of a city. Sheikh Zayyed Road is the dumbest shit I have ever seen, a 10 lane highway down the middle of the city??? And all that black asphalt actually raises the local temperature. That shit needs to just flat out gotten rid of and replaced with a competent transport system. Obviously Dubai couldn't ban cars tomorrow, first they need to build the infrastructure to support it. But they're fucking loaded so I don't see why they can't
"Wherever cars have been banned, nobody wanted them back" Here in my city, the city centre is built in a grid. Not too long ago, there was a road running right through the central square. It was removed in order to make more space for the people and well, the cars could also just go around. And people whined. Later they banned cars all together from the main road, and left it open for buses and trams, solving all the traffic problems.
I think I have the solution for the rural population. The hovercraft! We can get rid of all roads. We will be left with hovercraft gently gliding over untouched idyllic landscapes
When you said 'Ban Cars' I was put off, but when you said 'from our cities and suburbs' you now have my complete support. Anyone should be able to own a car, and it helps in rural areas due to wide spaces between, but in cities it is more space efficient to remove roads and use trains. In suburbs due to low traffic and being the border of city and rural, one car width roads should suffice for use in pedestrian travel and the occasional bus heading city ways or of the occasional car going rural ways, much like the image of a Japanese suburb. Cities are meant to be dense and cars hinder that, and rural lands are not dense and cars help with the expansiveness.
People really dont value the use of a car but as someone who lives in new york and has no car i can tell you its a horrible thing imagine going shopping and having to take a train or a bus carrying a big or pricey purchase also add the fact you have to take it home from the bus or train stop which is like 4 blocks away carrying a big tv. Thankfully we got cabs but the problem with that is paying 12 to 24 bucks to go shopping which is the usual if the cab driver isnt trying to rip you off from my place to the shopping mall or supermarket. Simply cars are a huge benefit so dont wish for that cause youll regret it. Edit Also add the times you cant get a cab or they aren't available to pick you up and your basically stranded cause you have too much of a load and walking and public transportation is out of the question.
@@stargamer7576 So a car for large items, public transport or a bicycle for everything else. Here in the Netherlands, a lot of people carry their groceries by bicycle, me included. 2 trips a week on the way home from work to pick up my groceries. It only takes half an hour longer than normal to get home and I don't have to waste my time going out specifically for groceries. And that is with me taking a longer way home to pick up my groceries instead of learning the layout of a much closer supermarket. If you have a family, add in a weekly or bi weekly trip by car if needed. Oh, and then there is of course the option of having large items delivered to your home. You know, the thing that a lot of people already do.
@@stargamer7576 I just pick up some things coming home after work, this way it is so spread out I never have to carry a lot of things. During rona I had to switch it up a bit and bought a bike trailer and went shopping that way. With my bike I can easily transport 20kg+ even uphill.
@@PhilfreezeCH still buying a car but good for you also i am not a fan of 2 wheel vehicles I've had very bad experience with them i rather have 4 wheels also i can pick up more things and carry my tools in a car and not worrying about other stuff. But just understand that having only bikes is just not gonna happen in our world cause it's really not a convenience specially when you bring others in a car i cant fit multiple people in a bike that's not the case and traveling with a car you can actually leave the city and go explore the us you can literally drive to Canada yes you could take public transport but how you'll go to a place that doesn't have that simply cars are necessary and unless your alternative checks all people's issues and demands it's just not going to happened i could take a plane or a tranin but do you think I want to deal with the TSA, IDs and rude customer service i rather drive and have a nice road trip. Also not to mention the cost which as I said it ain't going to happen cause of corruption.
@@rendomstranger8698 simply I'm done arguing cause I got to the point I don't care I prefer cars cause of the benefits of going where I have to go, the space in it, the safety in driving in a big vehicle and yes I'm aware accidents happen but so can bikes heck your literally the structure of the bike a car at least can take some of the shock unless your speeding, also don't forget the comfort and final why should I be limited to my area i cant freely take the train to a place that has no train and no I'm not biking to that place specially in hot weather. This world is huge. But lastly i just don't like people telling me how to live my life if i prefer a car why should I change that for someone else.
As someone who doesn’t live in a city my first thought was, that would be literally impossible for me, but I hate traffic with a passion haha. Better public transport is needed
It's such an ironic situation that public transport is so _inconvenient_ where I live that I never consider it an option. Taking the bike and car are thus my preferred options. And said public transport won't change until a forceful decision is made to change this status quo.
And when there's only public transport and the fares go beyond inflation no one will be able to travel and we'll all be back in the Dark ages. Enjoy that people.
Of course yes, with almost infinite capacity and higher speed, but only if transport demand is higher than 500 peoples per hour, ideally more than 10 000/hour (like most subways) , totally breaking down with less than 100 peoples per hour… That’s how public transport works More passengers = cheaper tickets= even more passengers= more money = more faster trains = even more passengers…
@@sadqqwwqeq4175 the Netherlands is a very small and densely packed country. The us on the other hand is large and sprawled out. It would cost obscene amounts of money and take decades to build rail lines to replace cars
@@k00lkidz4 We have so many abandoned railroads that we haven't used since the gilded age. America built a transcontinental railroad within a 6 year frame. The problem is the railroads have been confiscated by the government. I'm sure there would be a lot of companies that'd love to gain access to those railroads and start fresh and a lot of jobs would come from it. There is 0 excuse for not having railroads.
@@TechConnectDaily i dont think it costs that much to keep up car infrastructure in cities. Also it wouldnt happen instantly and there would be a period of months to years of neither good public transport nor car infrastructure. I just think improving public transport first is better
That is true, you need to slowly transition from cars to public transit so there isnt any public outcry, and to the "it doesnt cost mutch to maintain car infrastructure in cities," its true, but people driving around makes the air very smoggy, makes cities noisy and dangerous, and drives people away which indirectly adds to its cost. good stuff tho :)@@choty7066
With the capitalist oligarchy here in the us, the infrastructure won't be built. We need a complete transformation to the next political economic system: communism.
@@TechConnectDaily It'll take a few or more years to improve public transportation dingus. Renewing a shitty public transport to a better efficient one is costly. It won't improve overnight.
Me too! Where I live they removed the train when cars started to get popular… however they did convert the entire line into a bicycle path so that’s a positive!
I’m not a big fan of commuting by public transportation 40 miles a day. Especially with the crimes, drugs and tripped out crazy homeless peeing and vomiting all over said public transportation.
@@americancapitalist9094Looks like you have a homeless problem. No shelters, no support programs, no food and housing. Also looks like you have extreme poverty problem. And a drug problem. And a mental health epidemic. Wait. Let me guess, USA?
This is probably the sole reason why I was so socially dysfunctional as a kid and even now as an adult, and also why I've been dealing with so many health issues growing up as well. I grew up in suburbs and not having anything fun within reasonable walking distance kinda forces you to stay inside all day, so as a result I've been largely sedentary my whole life which I'm pretty certain is why I'm pretty messed up physically now too.
@@weirdwalrus5757 they would probably be safer and have more fun if their street was a pedestrian only street that actually looked nice and not like a dystopian hellhole
obviously "get rid of all cars" would not include every mobile vehilcle. we still need buses and trucks. also banning cars wound never work in rural areas. the best approach is to begin transitioning from a suburban-dominated society to urban-dominated society. rural areas will still need to exist. trucks will still need to transport goods.
Yeah, cars are great for recreation but there's too many of them driven by people who don't care about that. Cars should be relegated to being owned by responsible car guys and driven on race tracks during weekends.
It's funny to see how so many people here are brainwashed into thinking of cars as the solution rather than the problem that they may generally like the idea but still highlight that one first gotta take care of alternatives. Ironically, alternatives immediately pop up the moment you ban cars.
I crashed my car three months ago and only got it back a month ago after it took forever to get parts for it. Anyway, in those two months that I didn't have it, I had an electric scooter subscription, used public transport and used ridesharing for weekly shopping hauls, etc. I also walked more, feeling healthier and saved money. Since having my car back, it's just a glorified shopping trolley and used for work sometimes, I now much prefer walking, scooting and public transit.
I would have added “in cities” because honestly, in the countryside, there is no way to replace cars (and I tried). On the other hand, cities can do car packs outside centers and not have cars inside cities at all. Plenty of other ways to go around there anyways…at least in Europe!
Countrysides still need cars, but at least the usage of car is far less than that in cities so there won't be traffic jams in the countrysides. So, I think you have a good point!
130 years ago, my city (which then had a population of only about 25,000) had one of the best urban trolley systems in the state. It was destroyed in the 1930s to make way for... cars. Every time they do major road construction in the older parts of the city, they seem to keep finding sections of those pesky tracks buried underneath the asphalt that yearn to be used again. If those trolleys had been kept in use, I could literally take the trolley from school to work, and then straight home. If we Americans can stop using cars (mostly) in my lifetime, then I will do everything in my power to bring those trolleys (or a like alternative) back to my city.
@green dragon My city is now rapidly approaching 100,000 people. We also have a sister city just across the river that is home to one of the best universities in the country, so the population of the greater urban area is almost 200,000, and it feels like it. Traffic is horrible in some inconvenient places. Traffic on the university side of the river is much worse, though. A trolley system would come in mighty handy these days...
Malta is a counter example to all of the measures you mentioned: - we added bike lanes and cars keep increasing - we made public transport free everybody stopped using it - they took out one junction the average commute timea doubled - they added more buses, buses themselves started causing traffic jams - they banned parking and it just moved the problem to somewhere else
As a Danish student I have like most of my friends had a driver's licence since I was 18 because that was the norm to get one, but I have never used it for anything other than driving my sister around or picking up my grandma at the hospital. Within the city I live in I bike everywhere to school to work to the shops, when I want to go visit my parents or friends there is a perfect thing called a train that conveniently picks me up and drops me off in the center of the city and I don't have to think while this is happening and can sleep or do work it's almost like magic.
Herude på landet landet er det ret lækkert ikke at skulle GÅ 9 kilometers få at komme i Rema... For så at gå 9 kilometer hjem igen med tunge poser fyldt med mad.
@@missa2855 Idk jeg cyklede 8km til og fra skole igennem de første 2 år af gymnasium det var en meget frisk cykeltur at starte dagen med, men ja hvis man skal tage det store indkøb med hjem så kan det blive noget af en tur.
@@TheSteinbittmost people still live in cities, so it doesn't matter. Cars still have utility for people living in the countryside and we will never ban all cars.
A world where cars are a privilege for enthusiasts and only a necessity for low density and rural areas, and everywhere else can be reached via walking or public transport is a world I wanna live in. Clean air, dense, quick and easy to navigate cities. Electric cars for people that need them. ICE cars only for enthusiasts. I think it's a much more attainable goal over here in Europe than in the Americas, and we've seen Japans real-world success with public transport. I'm saying this as a car and motorcycle enthusiast.
Thats basically saying "fuck you" to poor people who want a car. Also haven't the pandemic teach anything regarding how fully relying on public transport is bad thing. If public transport are better, people will use it more than they use cars like in Japan and china. Banning things is just psychopathic bootlicker argument. Why the hell would I want to be on the same train with junkies, fat smelly people, pick pockets and robber when I can use my car?
@@sunshineskystar did *I* say anything about banning them? No. I don't agree 100% wholesale with everything said in this video but I agree with the idea of better planned walkable cities, and reliable public transport. So that people feel less reliant on cars. Like I said before, ICE cars for enthusiasts, but EVs (and hydrogen in hindsight) for people that need them. As in that is ideally, who would have what. I did not mention price point of any of the vehicles so I don't understand how that is a 'fuck you' to poor people specifically. Point is, if public transport and city planning was better, less people would feel reliant on cars in the relevant areas, therefore saving space, easing congestion, and being better for the environment. More people either on public transport, or walking.
@@sunshineskystar as someone who is in the poorer class ig i disagree. he literally said in the video that riding a bus is less expensive overall then owning a car. with a car you have to pay insurance, gas/petrol, etc etc. busses and trains are just objectively better in my opinion. if you don't wanna ride around with other people that's a you thing. cars are just straight up bad for the environment with all that gas emissions and car crashes.
I'm a huge car guy, and I support this. I wouldn't mind commuting by public transport or bicycle All of the car fun is outside of the cities anyways, there's no joy in commuting by car and standing still in traffic, and the cities get more liveable and cleaner
Yea! Ban cars but also make more tracks for track day! woooooo! Racing on public roads is dangerous and almost nobody actually wants to have to race around on them. Build up a nicer car culture out in the country-side for all the people who love em and repurpose some of those massive highway sections for racing.
I’ve always wanted a train station that connected to different states in America as I would think it to be more faster and enjoyable then driving to said destination
they already exist taut they are expensive and no one used them. cars are way better because you can stop at any moment without having to wait for stops.
@@covfefe1787 That ain't really a plus though nor is it particularly true. If you were going long distance why would you want to stop really? Only reason you may in a car because driving a car long distance sucks, it is boring and tiring. They are only expensive because we already poured massive amounts of money on car road networks which attracts more cars. This creates less demand so to make money it has to be more expensive. Cars are not in demand because they are better in any way but rather we just have the roads already. Needing to stop in Chicago on your way to Milwaukee to pick up more passengers isn't a con, you still in the green of time saved. Even if it took the same amount of time or even more time because of stops that still isn't a problem. On a train or even a bus to a lesser extent you are not driving, which means you are free to pass the time by working, playing video games or watch a film. It is similar to something like a dishwasher. Sure you may be able to wash you dishes by hand faster but the dishwasher allows you to not have to wash dishes. There will always be people living in population sparse regions traveling from one village to another that need to drive.
@@SirNarax the freedom of movement is the point if someone wants to stop to check out something in the middle of nowhere they can with a car. also cars prevent things getting stolen from you. in crowded trains people have gotten away with rape and even murder. who couldn't hack the metro system and destroy the entire economy for a few hours or what about terrorist attacks like bombs on a train? its happened in Japan before. it doesn’t happen now because more people use cars and cars cant get hacked. Im also against self driving cars I prefer to captain my own ship.
@@covfefe1787 As if you couldn't travel freely if you wanted if trains took over as the primary long distance and short distance transportation? Nobody is seriously suggesting making a car illegal just illegal to drive in certain areas and de-emphasize the car nation wide. Also the idea that trains and buses are bad because crime CAN happen on them is frankly and objectively, stupid. Fact: Crime happens in cars as well, a lot. Minor and viollent. And if you were worried about crime, crime in a car is easier. With a train you have to smuggle a weapon, the car can be a weapon. Cars can also be a source of crime in a way a train can't. It is well understood that more cars in one place = more road rage. Road rage can be anything from insults to outright assault, there isn't an equivalent on a train. The danger of "but sometimes". But sometimes people may assault you on the train. But sometimes people might cut you off and press the break and get away with insurance fraud. But sometimes trains might get hacked and this may sometimes have an effect. But every year 40,000 people in the US die from car crashes and only 1,000 die on a train, pretty much all of which from crossings not on the train itself. Funnier or sadder depending on your perspective and sense of humor. De-emphasizing the car actually is STILL a benefit to you even as someone who would choose to drive. It would make driving much safer for you and in many areas reduce traffic. I live in a village in the middle of nowhere, I know some people need a car and I understand that some people just want a car. Most people don't care and this would be a benefit to everyone.
As a proud resident of "Rural Ass Place, Pacific Northwest, USA", this actually sounds not that bad. Seattle and Portland suck ass to travel through. It really irks me that the highways go right through them. Also, trains do have a serious coolness factor, which makes up 50% of my agreement with this video.
I think this movement away from cars will take hold in the next 30-100 years and will be a distinguishing feature of the era. Places like Amsterdam, Tokyo have already shown us a peak into the future.
The big divrence is that people in Tokyo are quiet and well behaved on public transport where in the New York subway some random homeless guy throws his shit around and people blast music
Agreed, I think America is very young and arrogant now, because it has never really seen suffering like other older civilizations have. It is a wisdom born of necessity and experience, both of which seem to be missing in America today.
@@LennartBiesel The thing is that if you actually invest and care for public transport, it will become attractive to well "normal people". But if public transport in your city is terrible and inconvenient, then the entire middle class will skip it, thus leading to the target audience becoming societys worst which fill the trains and busses (and as a result even more people will avoid them)
As a Dutchman I highly advise the use of every form of transport besides cars. I've known lots of people, including myself, who are well over the age of being able to get a drivers license but still haven't even bothered to get one. Because apart from laziness, there's no real need. I bike everywhere, and if it's too far there's always a bus, train or metro that goes to my destination somewhat directly. There may be a spare kilometer or two left, but traversing that by foot is quite nice as well. The no-car diet is actually pretty damn good.
As someone who lives in the rural area, I really don't mind driving to a city where I park and have to use public transportation (if it was funded more and is everything you said). I really HATE driving in cities!! Hate hate hate.
Yes 😌☝️ and people using cars out in Bozeman Montana probably don't have a massive carbon footprint 🤷♂️😭😂 and you REALLY do need a heavy, big SUV im certain parts of the country. I grew up on an Indian Rez amd I get why people NEED trucks and SUVS. But now I live in NYC, and there is no reason for people to be having cars just because the way they do. 😒 it's 2md rent just to park them here in NYC
I live in a city during college. I try not to use my car unless necessary I hate driving and drivers are insane. When I go home I have to drive (rural area) and it’s much easier because I’ll go miles without seeing another car.
I agree that certain things about cars are dangerous, but for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere, it's not necessarily a viable thing to give up. I can see how major cities that might be a benefit, but in the countryside there is no viable way to get rid of cars. EDIT: I want to just add that I drive over an hour to go to work I use the turnpikes and highways for efficiency. If they did not exist, my drive to work would be over 2 hours. That isn't happening. I got a tesla and a eco boost truck. I am fine with just that.
I live in a not so big town (240k ppl) and one of my frustration with my city is that both the roads and the bus system kinda sucks. But we could get a good bus system if the prefecture actually invested in it, but no one cares about this around here. My country (Brazil) has an infrastructure ENTIRELY based on road ways. There are barely any trains and public transportation is pretty bad everywhere. The mindset here is still pretty car-friendly because we have this old fashioned notion that more cars = more Progress, and that having your own car is essential and it shows your status.
Its a self reinforcing issue. Cars suck. Always have. From the beginning they blame the issues with cars on lack of car infrastructure. Infrastructure gets built, and induced demand happens as it always did, and now the roads are as clogged and as unsafe as ever. And then this failure is spun as not having enough car infrastructure, and so the cycle begins.
When I went to Japan in 2018 I got terrified from the train network, then on my way back to my hotel room in Iidabashi after shopping in Shinjuko I realized how this massive sprawling city was more connected than any other city I have ever lived in.
Lol Japan shuts down every night . Even shinjuku shuts down. Trains cannot operate 24/7, even the self driving JR trains shut down for maintenance of rails and trains.
@@henrylo6773 Not necessarily, you definitely don't want to be running multi car trains when the demand is just not there to fill them. But you can easily run single car trains or you know just the rubber tire equivalent of a single car train ie a bus. If it was not for the still considerable night time demand being taken up by taxis simply because travellers are not given a choice there would be more than enough demand for night busses.
My mother always complained about how much i would spend on catching the bus. I paid £120 a month to get a bus pass that covered most journeys i needed to make. So i bought a car. The insurance alone costs more per month than my bus fare
@@Zed-Corps I'd rather take the bus because I can relax while traveling and you don't have to worry about fuel. The buses are frequent so I don't need a schedule, and if I need something big I'll get it delivered online.
@@thetimelapseguy8 in my area bus services are getting worse, they recently remove a line that directly goes to my job and near many markets. They claim not enough riders were use it, which is nonsense since every time I rode it was always packed. Got my self a decent vehicle for that reason.
To be honest, I still find that very expensive for public transports, not to mention the example he gave in the video, I can only deduce that public transports are indeed very expensive in the UK. Where I live in France I can take all public transports in my city with 40€ per month (it's 25€ for students and 10€ for unemployed people...), but I guess it's probably state-funded.
I love cars, especially Japanese sports cars. My family owns several cars and I like driving them around (cause our public transportation is shit). But when I visited Japan and experienced how amazingly convenient their trains were, I came back from my trip thinking I would gladly give up all our cars and my chance of ever owning one if we had a bus and train system as good as theirs. In my neighborhood, we have almost as many cars per household as there are people living in them. Because it's either that or suffer public transit.
If cars were banned inside cities only, people who live in rural areas wouldn't be fucked and we would also get to keep enjoying driving for leisure. Would love to see the day this becomes a thing
@@manaspradhan8041 No more deliveries in cities, no more elderly or disabled people. Everyone with a job on the other side of town is fucked. Can't buy anything you can't carry for 4km in your hands...
@@MrCmon113 not exactly sure which of these is not possible with public transport(other than delivery services for the last one lol). literally no one in my family drives a car and it hasn't affected our life in the least. even if mom or dad could drive we wouldnt have carried a tv home in our car lmfao
I live in Houston Texas and I need my car to do basically anything. The sidewalks are super old, dilapidated, dangerous, and a lot of times completely nonexistent. It’s crowded and the city and companies here cut corners that most places in the USA could not get away with; which is why we constantly flood. We have no pride in the city because there are no clear boundaries between city and the “areas” around that city that would normally be towns in any other part of the country. Plus we are all so busy working with nothing to do but drink alcohol and watch our sport teams lose. We do not value or even acknowledge any of the nature there is here and we heavily pollute our bayous and drainage ditches, and even our drinking water. If we had a motto it would be “corruption, crime, all for a dime”. I just made that up now but it’s actually true. What you are talking about in this video sounds so foreign to me, that my first instinct is to disagree with you, even though you’re completely right. If you look on Google maps with no labels, Houston is a grey blemish on the face of the planet. A sprawling spiderweb of concrete. Since we are one of the fastest growing areas in the country, I hope they at least implement the concepts you have presented here, and hopefully we can start doing the right thing if we can’t fix what we’ve already done.
Yep, Houston is entirely built around cars. The city is filled with car centric infrastructure with little walkable areas or public transportation. It’s truly one of the worst planned and ugliest cities I’ve ever seen.
I'm Italian and have been in Houston in 2015, it didn't look so much grimy, if you really want to see a city with the most ineffecient public transport and worst architectural urban sprawl I would invite you to see Rome. Roads are naturally tight and mostly occupied with parked cars, sidewalks and streets alike are riddled in craters, bike lanes are mostly non existent, people generally drive erratically and park in illegal positions, worsening the traffic aspect, in the worst hours you can literally take hours to travel a dozen of miles. There are no freeways cutting trough the city, forcing the traffic to drive trough every residential area. On top with this the public transport company is like hundred of millions dollars in debt, and the only thing keeping it from defaulting is the City giving them taxpayer money, despite them having a legal monopoly. There are only two main subway lines which don't connect many parts of the city, and the bus service is laughably disfunctional, buses almost never arrive on schedule and are mostly dirty or falling apart, many times in this years Buses have been literally burst into spontaneous combustion. On top of all this the Workers Union (which unfortunately in Italy are far more powerful than in any other country) protest and refuse to work almost once or twice a month. Rome is literally a quarter the size of London or Paris and it feels like living in the worst part of Shangai for how much ridiculously hard is to live here...
@@BeanDar It happens because our form of government is even more fucked up than yours. Basically the tax burden on the economy is 45% of the GDP and the Public Debt is at 160% of GDP instead. In this scenario add that Italy's political power is fractioned in Countless Territorial autonomies and Governmental subdivisions. We have the Regions, provinces, Prefects, Comunes and municipalities, each of them have their own bureaus and tax fees. Now consider that every public service is a state monopoly managed by the most lazy and incompetent bureaucrats and useless public employees; who are impossible to fire because sustained by Workers Unions who have incredible political power upon political parties. Add very high levels of corruption and Criminal Organizations, a complicated mess of codes, laws and regulations, and a electoral system who takes power away from the citizens to give absolute legislative power to TWO chambers of Parliament. Then if you want to change a law the two chambers have to do *twice* the same job, making the process of ratifying laws twice as slow... Let all this sink in and understand why public transport is at third world efficiently levels...
You can make suburbs that work with public transit, but the American style suburbs that use winding road to make it intentionally difficult to walk in and out of the neighborhood don't with too well. Not Just Bikes has some good content around that point, at one point he uses an example of a suburb that was built around a public transit stop at the center
As long as it doesn't mean the elimination of garage space it's good plan. Public transport and walking is fine for short trips and regular trips, but the moment you want to do a weekend trip away, or visit some weird corner of the city busses don't run to, pubic transport is not practical.
I sold my car 3 months ago and it felt great being able to save $500-$600 a month (bi weekly payments, insurance and gas altogether). I get some exercise walking to the train station or bus stop and I only pay $110 for a monthly transit pass. I dont miss having a car at all
“But cars are fun to drive”. Yeah for a lot of people building cars and driving them is fun. And has always been a thing. Same with planes, and bikes, and motorcycles, and go karts. Purpose built areas for these vehicles have existed since the beginning of their creation. “What about off roading or camping?” Same thing. A little more freedom to drive like they did 100 years ago - that still exists today.
“But deliveries!” Hmm special logistics vehicles using preplanned routes to local businesses centres that transport those goods to your door by foot, bike, scooter, delivery bus, train, plane, helicopter, drone. Highways specific to commercial travel was the main reason the highways were built in the first place.
Okay i seriously dont agree with you , first of all , your examples are , not the best to say the least... Planes: this example is wierd af, becouse you are saying that planes have an "purpose built areas" the only thing that could classify as are airports but planes doesnt use that to travel around, that would be comparable to gas stations for cars, planes use air as the road , so thats pretty wrong Bikes: you mean bike lanes right? Thats littreally serves the same purpose of car roads , only for diffrent vehicles. Go kart: you are seriously comparing the small ahh race track that go karts has to higways and everywhere else a car can go? Like i said , what you are doing is unfair to people who like cars, yeah some people like it for the speed but most of them like the journey itself! You know , going A to B. Seeing the diffrent things on the way You could say "oh just use a train" But thats still not fair for people who *just want to drive*
Okay, couple things… 1- I am not against the idea of just driving as an experience. That was the main novelty of automobiles when they were first created, and cars are very popular. However, they are managed very differently than all other modes of transportation. A list of drawbacks for how cars are used: Lots of cities and towns are too car centric instead of people centric. Cars take up so much space because of issue #1 There are too many unnecessary roads in some countries (the USA is a prime example) Some countries have worse infrastructure and/or places not designed for automobile use causing more problems Lots of places in the world have inadequate communion services (rail, bus, ferry). There aren’t enough race tracks in some places. 2- Your fixation on my (admittedly) very condensed statements does not seem to have put any thought into what point I was trying to make: TL;DR (and you should have read but who cares now) - Cars are fine. You can build them, collect them, race them, and drive them. But having a multitude of issues based on the living conditions of our society; I have concluded that there are too many cars out there. The roads themselves are designed poorly in large populated areas, the way to fix these issues has been around since they were first invented and there has been a large lack of care or effort put into minimizing the large environmental impact they put on everything over the last 50 years- despite safety and efficiency improvements.
@@zacharyjeffares8158good point, i agree that cities shouldnt be car dependent , but when i read your comment , i assume you agree with this video , which says : *ban cars* not reduce them , not make them less of a need but wipe them out all together. Maybe you should specify that you dont want all cars to get banned becouse when you dont say that its easy to assume you agree with banning cars
As a college student living through a gas crisis, economic collapse, and my car being one pothole away from leaving this plane of existence, I thoroughly agree.
It would solve pollution issues, the gap between the rich and the poor (due to lower expenses for the average person), traffic, high healthcare costs due to car accidents, and open up a ton of space for human habitation in cities. It would quite literally drastically improve city life in every way. Why they decide not to is beyond me but how society views it, but that can change.
Same, I’m a college student as well. Was recently in a car accident and other than the pain, PTSD and other associated shit, the idea of being free from a car payment and gas prices feels amazing. I can actually start saving some money instead of being in a constant stalemate financially.
@@PanelVulture the only point you provided is a concern that isn't really applicable anymore: the pandemic. Having lunatics on trains is frankly less concerning than in a car. Cars are weapons on their own, even more detrimental than on a public train, which can easily have security measures in place to hinder any notable harm. Consider the high death and injury tole of car accidents proportional to public transportation. It's a staggering comparison in favor of public transportation. Please elaborate as to how public transportion benefits the rich only and is an illusion to the poor. How are vehicles, which the poor already can't efficiently afford, comparatively more beneficial than public transportation (which they already are forced to use but at decreased quality due to lower funding)? It's curious to note that the rich are then benefited by using cars whereas the poor are forced to use public transportion. The thing is, that is already the case, so it is an irrelevant point.
As much as I love driving and working on cars, this video is spot on. I really wish the US were more connected by rail, the Amtrak leaves something to be desired. I also can't stand people thinking Teslas are the answer. The production of those things are terrible for the environment, they look god awful, and everyone who drives one drives like ass.
Lithium mining rapes the planet and not to mention alot of the energy used to power EVs comes from fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Diesel vehicles are by the cleanest in my opinion
@@nimnim3311 bro do your research electric vehicles are just moving the pollution somewhere else sure E.V. might not produce CO2 but the electricity that power those cars do along with lithium mines being very polluting I'd be cool with electric vehicles but there main selling point is a clean environment when it actually does the opposite
Sadly with the US, we need to first remove our policies surrounding zoning. Because of these policies even if we wanted to do this it would still keep jobs so far away from our homes.
@@josephang9927 because they think industrial zones means factories when in fact it means stores and restaurants, and shops. Heavy industrial zones are the factories and deserve to be zoned
@@josephang9927 lol not even bruh, it's not a party problem both of them do it, it's more of a nimby issue, like here in CA dems are trying to do zoning and housing reform to alleviate the housing crisis but fucking nimbys keep blocking the bills, i mean I understand why Republicans do it right? Because it goes with their belief system but democrat nimbys do it too like fucking hypocrites, they literally want to have their cake and eat it too. So in my experience it's a class issue, because here the democrat government is trying to do actual reform but it almost always ends up being blocked by nimbys who don't want poor people living next to them.
Ironically, I watched this video after learning to drive a car for the first time. I do think driving for the sake of getting around car dependent areas and driving for leisure, especially for car fans, are very different things though.
Absolutely, Im totally willing to give up driving in the cities if it makes cities more pleasant and I can drive my classic car and my sports car everywhere else
Lol I am still taking driving lessons as well good luck dude. Those guys don't understand you can't do anything productive without personal vehicle in the countryside.
If public transport was accessible enough, even people with disabilities, like me, wouldn't need any car to move around a city. But the sad truth is that, at least in my hometown Bratislava, Slovakia, this is still a big issue. So car is more comfortable for me atm.
Weirdly enough I always found the public transportation there to be pretty good, especially for a city that's almost 20km across. Bus line 21 is the goat
Ofc 😭☝️ i think in cases like yours an allowance should be made. I feel like everyone else having to use mass transit would also make it much cheaper for people who REALLY need cars to buy them. ☝️ theres also parts of America where people genuinely need trucks and other large, robust, offroad vehicles to safely live and work.☝️🤷♂️ If everyone who can, HAS to give up their car, I feel like the people who need to have one won't be a problem and I think 🤔 there'd be too few people driving to cause the same problems w cars as before
I appreciate the points raised in this video but honestly I couldn't imagine how I could function without a car. I play in the drums and practice 3 times a week and have to go to gigs with all my gear the sum of which is over 50kg. There's no way I'd be able to take public transport to freely move about the town with my gear like I already do with my Car.
Psst! Maybe just have a small electric car for all that. The point is reducing car use not cutting it. I also do cauffeuring because public transport is prohibitively expensive where I live. I drive my car and take 4 other people who are also going in my direction of travel. That way, I save money on gas and also have the convenience of a car when I get to my destination
@@PelleCristi small cars dont fit a set of drums, and fuck EVs, the Congolese people will thank you. Though good job on the ride sharing, that's the real solution BritMonkey should've proposed in this video alongside public transit
as someone who lives in the middle of nowhere my quality of life has gotten so much better since i got a car i can see friends it also gives me great autonomy and im a much happier person then i was before car bans are feesible in places like Amsterdam and maybe even London but when you are out of that its a lot less feesible
I'm in a small UK city out in the suburbs and it's quite easy to go car free here. Buses are every 10 minutes at the worst day time frequency or every 6 minutes on busy bus routes. Buses to the hospitals are free too. Then you get our tram system that can take you from one side of the city in an hour or 20-30 minutes from any end station to the centre, which is about the same as a car but you don't have to pay $3 an hour for parking. The cycling lanes are getting better too but need some work.
Why Trains are better than Cars: -Trains go Choo Choo (Cars don't) -They can be really fast -Are more interesting to look at -And more safer and efficient than a car
They use iron wheels to drive on steel. That’s like the least possible friction after magnetic levitation. A car has much more friction and is so inefficient.
Why trains are really fucking stupid: The maintainance and construction costs are astronomical. Cars are an extremely effiecient and flexible means of getting people around. Anti-csr ideology is ridiculously annoying and focused in on a handful of city centers and completely ignored that even in cities with extremely good transportation, there are still more drivers than public transit users, and it's the poorer people living in the periphery who need cars more than the wealthy people who can afford to live near public transit
@@flakgun153 but when it comes to energy,space and time efficiency which are three things that we’ll need more and more the train is clearly superior. If we want to abandon the car then public transport needs to be everywhere either way
Why trains are worse - can't pick up all my belongings and go halfway across the country on something I already own, can't suddenly see something interesting and go visit it, have to follow a time table
Trains are awful. Everyone has to be at the same place for departure, at the same time and also be traveling to the same location for it to be useful which isn't what every commuter needs. Trains can't accommodate every commuters needs.
Also banning cars would enable more people from poorer circumstances to get a better job because they are able to travel further without being able to afford a car
totally the opposite I say! poorer people will live further away from a city due to insane renting/buying cost. This mean that the poor people have to travel/ spend more time travelling opposite of what a rich person living close to the work area do. The disparity will increase.
@@aziza9861 Well, with a more efficient and used public transport system, traveling won't be such a big issue, honestly. Heavy use of public transport would make it even cheaper, and there can be subscription services on public transport, which lowers the monthly cost of transport more. In any case, is cheaper than owning and driving a car. For poor people especially, owning a car is a massive burden, that will only keep them poorer. The cost of gas, the taxes, the reparations when necessary... most people would be much well off if they didn't give in to the stupid idea that you need to own a car to have a better life.
I’ve had to walk everywhere by necessity, and it’s honestly been a blast. It also gets significantly easier in just a couple weeks. What’s great is the muscle you gain also makes times where you would’ve walked anyway much easier. Now you can go enjoy parks and nature and literally anything that requires legs without the constraint of weak muscles. Also if you walk with a straight back it strengthens your core too so you become much more fit and it’s nice when you look better by doing something you have to do anyway.
walking is so great. it grounds me n makes me feel alive n human. like im going on an adventure. it feels like im using my body exactly how it was meant to be used. To move! Haha… i just hate cars. I hate how they’ve just dominated the world.
It is pretty bad, but if roads charged you a cost per use enough to pay for construction and maintenance it would be similarly dire. The issue is that roads often get subsidies when trains don’t. A better solution is to subsidise roads less and trains more, and charge private car users (who could be using a train or something instead) a higher charge to help subsidise the roads for the lorries and buses that need to use it.
London, ON to Toronto, a 2 hour journey is around $50, less than a tank of gas, it sounds great but that becomes a problem when you want to travel with a friend. We need cheaper trains everywhere
Greetings from Germany in 2022 - our public transport as it is right now can definitely NOT carry that weight right now. What did our government learn from this? "Offering every citizen a ticket for only 9 Euros has shown us that a lot more people use public transport if prices are reasonable...but our current public transportation system needs a giant overhaul...We should stop offering them tickets for 9 Euros" Thanks, German government.
9 Euro ticket war einer der besten Regierungsprojekte seit ich denken kann! Hoffentlich kommt es in einer Form zurück und hoffentlich versteht die Politik bald, dass die Zukunft nur im Öffentlichen Nahverkehr liegen kann. Immerhin ist es hier nicht ganz so schlimm wie in den USA...
With what monies. You’re broke and this winter you’ll probably have no heat think how awesome it will be when your loved freeze to death . You’ll feel so good more carbon removed
@@punchcat0736 atleast they arent on the verge of a market crash and have housing crisis and have reasonably priced stuff unlike the god blessing america
How can the car owner be virgin and the public transport user be a chad? The public transport user is a cuck who is forced to rely on others for transportation while the car owner is self made
Making public transport better is also really good for people who can't drive, I can remember as a child I wanted to go somewhere but couldn't since my parents didn't have time to drive me, it was too far to just walk there, cycling can be very tiring, especially uphill, and buses weren't often enough.
Getting rid of cars almost requires a redesign and rezoning in the US. It's 100 where I am and walking to the store isn't viable. Even worst, my the supermarket I like is 21 min by car but 1hr 13 min by bus. Not to mention it requires a transfer in an area I wouldn't hang around at night.
Not almost, it DOES require a redesign and rezoning in the US. Mixed use zoning would allow grocery stores (as well as convince stores, cafes, and bars) to open up WITHIN neighborhoods. Redesigning streets to cater to pedestrians would improve the trip on foot (or even bike), as well as promote small business opening up along people's paths.
Your suburb is probably so empty with density that once the cars are gone there will be heaps of room for new corner stores to open up. The market will accomodate. It would help if commercial and residential zoning laws were all considered the same while the transition is taking place.
Well even climate scientists have recommended that we need to start thinking about land de-development anyways. Cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas simply don't need to exist and would benefit from future abolition, along with the swaths of suburban sprawl regions in the US. This would greatly decrease our country's infrastructure costs, and de-developed land could be designated as federally-owned national park land. At the very least, we should probably immediately halt the building of any new suburban areas (like Portland did). The cities that we would keep would of course get rezoned and undertake things like urban freeway removals to procure land that can be used to increase density, once rezoning does occur though, a lot of organic changes will take place themselves as developers come in and build higher-density buildings. This could be accomplished, or at least seek to decrease the number of people living in environmentally unfriendly environments via government buyout programs. Tons of people in the US are literally trapped living in places they don't want to because no one will buy their home.
@@benw3864 if the predicted demographic bust occurs then these things might happen. But a huge chunk of these transit dreams circle around convincing people to adopt a level of density and lack of ownership that is unwelcome by most.
Yes and imagine how empty the cities would be without all the elders, families and people with leg injuries. Only students in every urban area in the country. Wow, how amazing!
@@ka1ebsauce Blame that on American Zoning Laws. If America kept with Mixed Zoning, you wouldn't have Groceries and Necessary Commercial Areas to be several miles away from you.
"Heh, what a fun shitpost title. It's a bit long for a shitpost, but I'll check it out." *10 minutes later.* We should actually ban cars though, this man is right.
Kinda no 1. it will destory many jobs and companies around cars 2.cars don't kill people, Bad drivers do 3.Making more bus will still cerates pollution 4. If we switched to more bus that still means there will be trafic 5. Driving is fun (Up to opinion) 6. You have to sit to others in a subway or bus (Up to opinion)
Here in my 3rd world country public transport is a miserable thing to go through. Crowded, loud, sticky, expensive, irregular timetables, understandably unpleasant employees. I'd rather be stuck in traffic with some nice music in the comfort of my car than inside a sardine can. This will never change because politicians will exclusively line their own pockets instead of investing even 5% of that into anything usable by the common people.
Most of these problems are CAUSED by other cars on the road. Q: Why do you think there's so little funding is going into your public transport? A: Probably because your local govt' and transport agency is prioritising building car-focused infrastructure Q: Why are your buses always late A: Probably because of the above answer but also because they're stuck in traffic due to so many cars on the road. Also, keep in mind how selfish and entitled it is to think that just because you are rich, you are allowed to make everyone else's life around you worse.
@@mineswah4363let me repeat and emphasize that the politicians are corrupt and politicians and rich people who pay them travel by cars so they will prioritize that. It's even worse for a woman because perverts are everywhere and in a packed public transport perverts take advantage of that and women cant even complain as these perverts pretend they dont do it on purpose.
@@flzrian3623 So what's your solution? you've said why you think the problems exist, the main one being "not enough demand". also I like ">loud - wear headphones" like ah yes, if I just ignore the issue it goes away, magic, also these are called 3rd world counties for a reason...
I love cars, I love driving, but I'd give it up in a heartbeat if my city had good public transit and an alternative to getting in my car. I hate the fact that in order to get a bag of potatoes from 800 meters away from my home, I'm basically condemned to sit in my car and travel to it. I wish we had bike infrastructure and I could just bike to the store. I hate suburban sprawl. Send help.
This probably is a good idea in heavy populated areas or cities. But not where poeples works are far away, with no public transit, and walking and biking would take forever
@@polipod2074 not economically feasible, imagine how many new lines would have to be made, and the frequency of the buses/trains, to serve the needs of the countryside on the same level of efficiency of the cities, for exemple. Also, the factor that in rural areas, everything that you need in urgency is too far away, be it hospital, or police, or supermarket. A car is a must when you know that grandpa may be bitten by a venomous snake once again and there is no way in hell an ambulance is getting here, and back, in able time. (yes, that is personal experience)
To begin with I thought "No way that's ridiculous and public transport sucks" but you actually convinced me. I can't use public transport because it's crap where I live.
It's incredibly dumb to try and ban cars everywhere. Outside of cities and towns public transport just does not, and cannot work. Distances are too large, travel is too infrequent, and there's no simple reasonable way to connect each point. Ban cars in cities and towns. For cross country travel make trains more feasible. Then for rural areas use electric cars.
"you must be a city dweller who doesn't own a car"
neither of these things are true, please stop polluting my comments section with this argument
Yay i'm first here for once
"youre just a socialist idiot" seems to fit way more
so glad I just found this channel
HAHA YOU DELETED YOUR OLD COMMENT
straw-man argument
If we're banning cars, we need more mixed use spaces, too. I won't ever feel the need for a car if I could work, shop, and live in an area where all three are within walking distance of one another.
As a European the fact that is not the standard seems crazy to me, like who thought it would be a good idea to seperate all these things? Oh, wait the car industry did. (And the people building highways, too.)
It's because countries in Europe are pathetically small.
@@robertortiz-wilson1588 Because the US is a big country you can't have working cities... I see.
Auto industry are the ones who benefit, and want to keep urban sprawl happening.
R1 (single family homes) zoning is the the reason you can't live and work in the same place. Most cities in the US have like 70+% R1 zones. Nothing commercial can be built. Not even a coffee shop.
@@Miguel-yx9zg Capitalism thinks differently.
A frightening thing I noticed when going to New York was that the ambulance couldn't get around. There were too many cars. Imagine if we could have empty ambulance routes.
yea lets forget about police and fire department services
@@Perambulous for them too, of course
Empty ambulance routes are a thing in Europe :)
I've watched people get outta the way for an ambulance and somebody goes "ohh!! Y'all moved just for ME???? Awww thank you " and pull in front of the ambulance and not go a fast speed.
Also yesssss first responder routes!!!
@@HorpheuNurbem uhh, where in europe? my country sure doesn't have them
“We’re going to install a national belief that cycling is patriotic” as a Dutch person this made me laugh so hard! I never thought of it in that way!😂
Well, it kinda is. Im dutch amd i really do not need a car
I'm Dutch and I always cycle everywhere I go, even if I have to cycle one hour to go to school and another to go back. It's good to exercise and it's completely free, aside from the bicycle of course.
@@TBMVD hell yeah 👍 here in Indonesia, roads are most highly dangerous and the public transportations are all suck. We both living dangerously by driving or even just walk along the pedestrian 😅 bike? Don't even think about it
Just as patriotic as using the trains hell yeah
But you know it's true :D
I dont mind biking long distances, I dont trust 1 thin line between me and a car going 40mph to keep me safe
that’s why bike lanes need to be better. if people cycled more instead of driving the government will be forced to make biking lanes better.
@@crazystupidbeanye but ain’t no one gonna drive like that. And it hurts because officials are gonna go like, “oh, ain’t nobody using these painted gutters, guess we don’t need this bike lane after all!” and just merge it all to make more space for cars.
I so wanna bike to get to school because I don’t believe I’m responsible for a car. And yet these streets are so dang dangerous that I’m practically forced to drive to get anywhere
And we don't trust bikers to not be stupid entitled assholes 😂
Good luck biking in a storm
try 100 mph
You don't have to ban cars. It just needs to be possible to not be dependent on one.
Basically:
1. Copy Japanese zoning laws which allow small shops, barbers, restaurants etc. to be build around residential areas within walking distance.
2. Build cycling infrastructure like they do in the Netherlands, especially in areas where public transport is cost-prohibitive.
That's it. As long as you can easily access daily necessities without a car, the majority of people stop using them on their own because they're so expensive.
Even more interestingly, car enthusiasts should actually want this because the small percentage of people who will still have or want to drive would experience less traffic and less road rage. Would also improve the economy because products get faster from A to B. Also allows ambulances and other protective services to move around more quickly. Everyone would win, well, except those who profit from the current horrible infrastructure.
Not like it's possible to kill such a large industry without a huge backlash.
As a car enthusiast this comment relieved my madness
People keep thinking that people driving are idiots. As a father of 2 whenever i need to haul the small bastards around the main issue with NOT using a car is the sheer inconvenience of it all.
Whenever I am on my own or just travelling with my daughter it is easy to take the bus, but if we need to have the stroller for the baby and my wife is also coming it suddenly makes more sense to just pack everyone in the car and get moving.
When public transport options are actually good the car doesnt move. For instance I used to work in a different city where I had to drive there on a Monday, and between then and Friday when i would drive back to my home town the car would just stay parked and I would be on a subway.
People really dont LIKE paying for cars but there are good reasons for why they do and it has more to do with how the cities themselves are being run than the individual himself.
@@axelfiraxaplenty of bicycle trailers on the market are capable of carrying kids that cost substantially less than a used car AND aren't significantly less convenient for short trips. Once the kids are old enough for their own bicycles it is already pretty common for children in the US to have bicycles. I don't find helmets less convenient than seatbelts, and using properly designed bicycle infrastructure is significantly safer than driving.
@@robbieaulia6462 Sure, there will be some backlash. Tell these people to shove their complaints up their asses until the projects are completed.
For Americans, it's difficult to go carless (at the moment that is) because of the gross zoning and land use practices. You can't drive to the store without having to drive all the way there. You can't just walk down a block, pick up a few things that you need, and go back home. And that's why it's so hard to give up cars in the US then Europe; where a lot of older cities have mixed zoning and land use. To begin on limiting the use of cars (I think banning is extreme and takes away personal freedom of choice) Americans need to fix how the land is used and zoned. Only then will we be able to walk to the hardware store and nail a civil engineer to a cross.
fuck freedom, shit has too many downsides lmao- banning cars, guns and forcefully taking *fully tested* vacines might take away your sum of your freedom but it would save millions of lives... but that would be too hard for you would'nt it :((( your fReEdoM is more important than millions of lives innit.
also i get your point with the zones btw- i was'nt rlly talkin specifically too you just ventin to all the twats out there lol
The American way of freedom is overrated. We humans are animals and need a proper set of rules to act responsibly.
@@monkeyman321 100%, as long as your humanity is'nt takin away, you can be a indevidual, you can choose from many careers and everyone is treated equally.
its all about balance
Banning isn’t extreme when cars cause to much damage to human life and the climate. What’s extreme is not helping humanity prosper and not addressing climate change. Cars can’t be banned everywhere due to how terrible US infrastructure is but I believe it’s needs to start being banned the urban centers of the largest cities in the US and build from their public transportation and over time more areas will ban cares and become pedestrian/bike friendly, which gives more space, better quality air, and help many small businesses.
Or like Japan virtually not zone at all.
1980: there will be flying cars in the future!
Future: no cars
We spend tremendous resources on highways and wonder why we have no flying cars
One thing is for surten cars will not be band for 3 to 4 years in the usa (as of 2021)
Considering how many people die trying to navigate two dimensions in a regular car, it's a good thing we don't have flying cars with an extra dimension.
That's good, actually
We'll replace the cars with autonomous taxi drones. They'll land right in the middle of the intersections so pay attention to the traffic lights!
you choose trains because you're an environmentalist, I choose trains because AUTISM. we are not the same
ur odd.
@@katiea.1995 no, well technically yes, but I’m just an autistic prat. Although I am an environmentalist, my main reason for choosing trains is just because I have a hyper-fixation on them
Same
@@FunAngelo2005 highly respectable
As a verified autist I can confirm I like them for both reasons
Banning cars for cities seems like a good first step because I cant imagine banning cars for rural areas any time soon, its almost a necessity over there.
Exactly
The needs of the countryside man are different to those of the city. transportation, living, even personal security, are primarily reliant to the individual rather than the public, as everything is very far from us.
Transitioning to public transportation in the city centers and adjacent areas? Yeah, totally doable, even like it is now.
Transitioning to public transportation in the countryside? Not happening
It’s insane I ain’t using public transport in my own city when I can just drive my own car what’s happening to this world
@@riograndedosulball248 Roads are heavily subsidised, as well as all the other facilities that need to be extended to reach low-density areas. If people who lived rural actually paid for these costs most of them would move and you'd probably only have farmers left
@@m.f.3347 if people had to pay for roads everyone would live in a village lol.
Even banning in cities can be a problem. Restrictions seems like a better idea
I've been to a lot of citites around the world, and I've noticed a kind of "universal rule" of cities: the more car friendly a place is, the shittier it is to be.
A park is a better place to be than a parkway, but it works at every stage in-between as well. There is almost no place that can't be made better by making it less car-friendly.
Nice to see you here! Love your videos about the Netherlands. I've recently started a study regarding mobility :D
@@letheas6175 Nederland laat zien dat er alternatieven voor auto's bestaan zonder de auto's totaal uit te bannen.
shut up i love v12 cars and i dont care
Nice to see you here!
madhavi v lmao then you’re a loser
For people who say "I lived in the middle of nowhere and the nearest shop was 1 hour of driving". This video pretty much says to reduce car usage within urban areas and cities. Cars used in desert areas like this are not a problem at all, it's the huge largely populated suburban areas with thousands of cars and constant traffic that are the problem
Wish he would specify. At least in the point of the video I'm in he has not mentioned rural areas.
the thing is, train.
Europeans clearly do not know what it is like to live in an American or Canadian city if they think this is a valid criticism. Less than 15% of people in a N.A. city can get rid of their car and rely on public transit, and most of those who can are rich people who live downtown and are always going to own a car anyway "just in case". For the other 85%, the only way transit makes sense is if they can afford to spend 2-3x longer commuting than the 0.5-1.5 hours they already spend, and if they'd actually save enough on parking and gas to use transit for their daily to-and-from-work commute.
Yeah cause the cities are built FOR cars. Fix your city fix your dependency.
@@theredscourge you are assuming that there wont be any improvement in infrastructure lmao.
I live in New York where cars essentially are second class citizens, and when I’m leaving work at around five there are hour long traffic jams to cross a 3000 foot bridge, meanwhile I zoom through it on the subway. So by that point I don’t really care about being on crowded train bc I get home almost half an hour faster then a coworker who lives near me
"buying a bus ticket twice a day" Well, here is one of your problems, a price model that actively discourages public transportation utilization.
Here in Budapest you can get a monthly ticket for a flat price with unlimited utilization (for about 60% price compared to 2 line tickets every work day). Also we have a bike rental service for about £11 _a year_ where the first 30 minutes of every journey is free. Yeah, everything is crumbling here, but at least the public transportation pricing scheme is figured out!
now i just imagine you in a shiny new bus driving through a crumbling city like: "this is fine"
@@Helperbot-2000 lol, but the bus isn't shiny or new either, just cheap.
@@rustkitty oof
I think most cities have a monthly or weekly pass option
The point of the example was a worse case scenario for the bus and what people in car centric places would use for a reason against banning cars
I am a car guy, and I strongly support this.
For any car guys around.
1. There will be less drivers around. When we do drive were we can, it will be much more comfortable.
2. Those that will choose to drive, presumably will do so because they enjoy it. Hence, better drivers around.
3. Who actually enjoys driving in big congested cities? We can drive outside cities and on circuits.
4. We get all the benefits that non-car lovers get.
I agree. I like driving too but you know what completely depletes the experience? Traffic. This solves the traffic problem. And let’s everyone get to where they need to faster, even if cars are rerouted and need to drive more/further. It does benefit everyone it loads of ways.
Having a car myself( Lexus is200), and being a car guy I rarely use the car to go anywhere, in my region public transport is 20€/Month for everyone under 26 and is 6€ a month for everyone over 65 and I can go anywhere by train ,metro, bus and tram.
Everyday when I go to college instead of spending 45 min in my car having to pay attention to the road, i spend 45 minutes in a bus where I can sleep,or see the phone. I use my car to chill at night where I can't sleep l, take my friends to dinner or cinema and go to some car meets and I enjoy the car a lot.
I'm not saying you're wrong those would be great things, but I think you're naive if you don't at least consider those eco-facist cunts won't try to ban or tax cars away.
@@kersacoft
If your logic is:
We should not do something we agree would be beneficial to almost everybody, including ourselves, because it will then be more likely that the law will go to far, then we should be talking about political reforms or leaving to go abroad.
Because such a fear is nuts.
If something must be done, it is done. I don't see how Eco-fascists will take over, at least in my country. Which for all it's problems, is at least good at preventing any one political group of pushing laws without consent of most of the population.
Btw, a tax on cars should almost by definition exist. I don't think there is one microeconomics book that doesn't use cars as an example of negative externality that should be internalised.
These taxes already exist, so maybe tax on cars may increase of a small degree, a complete ban however is absurd.
Cars will still be necessary, at least for the foreseeable future, to travel to any rural area, and still to perform many jobs within and outside the cities.
I doubt delivery guys will ever use public transport. They will continue to speed in Vespas around the cities.
@@leonardodavid2842 I'm not saying our hobby should be above the common good of mankind, just that I doubt once most people won't need cars anymore that they'll let us exist in peace, many people don't support freedom they don't use. Eco-fascist was just an insult.
I'm a car guy, I'm one of those guys the EPA hates. Ironically while I like a loud or fast car every now and then, I would rather live in a community similar to the Netherlands, where car speed is limited with smarter city planning, and driving is less of a requirement, but more of a want and desire.
yeah, cars in inner cities shouldn't really be a thing, but in rural and suburban areas is where they belong in my opinion
Car ownership in rural areas (assuming EVs only) is fine as long as car owners are actually willing to pay their fair share. The problem is making car owners pay the real cost of all the infrastructure they require would make it so that many people would not be able to afford cars anymore as we excessively subsidize road infrastructure. I think in the future cars should be banned within city limits, be extremely limited in suburban areas, and allowed in rural areas, BUT car owners will have to pay large ownership taxes & property taxes on those who live rural would be raised to cover their infrastructure costs. If car ownership really does come down to "I want to own one because I like it more even if I have other options" then it shouldn't be the government's job to fund that hobby.
@@benw3864 to be fair cyclists don’t need to pay road tax or insurance, If anything car drivers are subsidizing them
@@oscardighton8580 True, but cyclists could also use a vastly cheaper (to build) bike road and they don't wear down the roads. The difference in insurance makes sense since cyclists don't have the same propensity to kill people, nor are there so many other externalities for them to cover.
@@oscardighton8580 You should look up the stats to maintain cycling paths - Wearing of asphalt is not linear with weight and the cost of servicing cycle infrastructure barely even comes close to the billions and billions spent on maintaining the highway systems. So no cars don't subsidize cycling infrastructure( Also you need to remember it isn't "cars" subsidizing anything, it's the government that chooses where funding goes and that money comes from taxpayers' pockets).
We don't need to ban cars. Just minimize car dependency
Edit: seens like i accidently started a war. Yes you can live somewhere non car dependent, but let's face it, you STILL NEED a car for daily jobs like buying groceries or taking someone to the hospital on emergencies ( its a much more available option if you live in a country where you have to PAY for an ambulance)
So yea, car dependency is bad but we must be very careful about how we're supposed to fix it
Indeed if they banned cars Im going to stop living in this world
No. Cars need to completely banned, except emergency vehicles.
@@durece100AND logistics, I can see how they are delivering my brand new wardrobe with tram.
I actually love trams and other public transport and use it in Poland all the time, they are amazing and like only 20 bucks per month to travel as much as I want here in Krakow
@@durece100 Lol, you car haters are funny. Completely laughable hahaha.
Car’s should definitely have way less dependence, but it would have to be done precisely considering many rely on cars to reach far away jobs, and need cars during the winter
For me, the biggest downside to not having a car is that it limits how much it is to comfortably carry with you. Luggage, musical instruments, other kinds of equipment etc. Otherwise I'm pretty happy about living without a car.
And that you have to travel with others, and you can't leave when you want. It's extremely impractical
With a cargo e-bike you can carry as much as you could in your car. You can travel on your own and leave whenever you want with a simple bike or with a high frequency transport network. Plus do you really need those things on an everyday basis ? Cars can do the most, but most of the time it's like destroying a sand castle with a bulldozer.
@@Mrrraaou Yeah, a smaller vehicle makes more sense if you don't need a car on a daily basis - and I don't. Renting a car on the occasion I need it would be an option if I had a license.
@@taxtengo7427 in the ideal future, we would live in a car free city with some rentable cars, which can drive by themself.
Car sharing is the solution. Renting a car the rare cases you actually need it
The only reason i will agree on car ban is to ride horses like cowboys
Aaand...
We have a problem on Horses waste in Urban areas. But not a problem in Rural areas.
@@rykmak2432 aye man if you invest in sth might as well be prepared for inconvenience that comes along with it
69 likes 🤑🤑
They have too high maintanence, someone has to clean the shit of the road and they are harder to controll
@@YellowEvoV110 but have you considered: they can be petted.
Now you cant do that with a car can you?
I'd be down for this within city limits.
Rural communities still need cars though
@@tommykirk3403 "forcing"
As a rural dude,I agree
As a Rural, we already use Cars less than people on cities, so, is just kinda fair.
This is a big problem, all the politicians who speak about "no cars in 2050" and so on totally forget about all the people living on the countryside. Like how am I supposed to be able to get food and other necessities when the closest store is many miles away, and if there even are busses the closest stop is very far away and the busses are very infrequent, like 1 in the morning and 1 in the evening. Cars are still needed, there is no way they'll be able to build railroads or bus lines to satisfy the needs of people in very rural areas in the coming decades
They have horses lol
My favourite part of this video as someone that is learning Chinese was your joke about bikes being foot-powered cars, which is the literal translation for bike in Chinese :)
So what were they called before cars were invented?
@@paintedfingernail2308 Good point! 车 means car, but also means vehicle and originally was the term for wheeled carts/chariots etc. its also used with other characters to mean bus or taxi etc. But cars are now the most common wheeled vehicle so I guess are what is assumed when you say it.
@@rogan6947 oh that's rad
@@paintedfingernail2308 what's rad is Chinese phrases are generally made up with words to give literal meanings because the language is so syllabically condense. A motor car is a "gas car", a bus is a generally called "public gas car" depending where you're from, a train is a "fire car", a tram is an "electric car", an ambulance is a "save protect car", a taxi is a "rent out car". People say Chinese is hard to learn, in some ways yes, but in English you're learning a completely different word for all these things.
@@JiminyClarkson 😭holy shit that's even cooler
Even as an automotive enthusiast, I find it hard to disagree. Cities and the environment are just better without cars.
Cities for sure, but ownership should be voluntary. Banning cars or enforcing arbitrary limits on things is not very liberal in the slightest. Say no to eco-fascism.
@@S.ASmith More people will be saved from sickness and deaths if we make stricter mandates. That is not fascism that is welcomed regulation.
@@gurumage9555 said hitler while banning warming up the water with the crab inside.
@@S.ASmith your package is arriving soon, courtesy of uncle Ted
@@gurumage9555 "Less people will be saved"???
I don't know if you're in favour of regs or not hahaha...
Anyway..
Regulations are already strict enough. Regulation stifles innovation to the point you get no improvement.
There are very efficient engine designs that likely won't see the light of day and Porche's SynFuel and Konningsegg's Freevalve tech that won't see widespread use because of such things.
EVs are a scam. Only good for buses and taxis in cities. Good quality fuel with LPG/CNG and Hydrogen internal combustion as other options (especially for road haulage and plant machinery) is the _correct_ way forward. But no no, it makes too much sense for politicians to do such things.
Improving city transport links would take cars off the road voluntarily, reduce car idle times (decreasing wear) and mean you can reduce road volume and size over time in a gradual and slow change.
Bringing down the ban hammer on something because Gretta said "HOW DARE YOU" and Elon offers you some weed is asinine and crippling.
For what it's worth, when I went onsite to a customer in Germany, I actually loved the convenience of walking / tram / train compared to literally having to drive everywhere despite living in a significant American city. Way less stressful. Lost a bunch of weight without trying. And no one trying to run me over on a daily basis.
@@Kirill-er9gv It's the exact opposite, the whole point of car free cities is to save time.
@@Kirill-er9gv It's TEXAS bro, don't ask a logistics and transportation expert for what a cowboy will know- horses are better than cars.
@@Kirill-er9gv Trains. Also you haven't watched the video fully, you'd understand the general consensus for rural areas if you did.
Not to mention how much of an eyesore cars are
@@Kirill-er9gv Have you ever heard of regional Trains?
Can't tell if this video is serious or not, it's so mentally deranged that it seems like a joke video, but at the same time it's missing the most important component of a joke video, the funny
funne moments
memtally derange ye
@@Oppen1945 car bad foot good unironically
@@Oppen1945 ur sooooo unironically ironically ironical unironically 🙄
@@ihazplawe2503
Tell me how we will transport materials from point A to point B.
I’m an European student. I pay 50€ for a bus card every September, it lasts a year. I spend 50€ a year to take a vehicle, with air conditioning, seats and a driver, which would be almost the same as getting carried around by my parents. The difference is that I can take the bus wherever and whenever I want to.
Nice
...Wherever and whenever your wishes are scheduled by the transport services... I mean... there are places where you could only go twice a week taking the bus at 9:00 and paying what they tell you to pay.
@@antonioalonso2986 that's not quite the case for me, my city is almost entirely covered buy bus stops to the point that it's hard to be farther than 200m from a bus stop.
@@Iknowthismeme that's it: it is not your case... but I think it's an error to legislate from particular's point of view without considering the necessities of the rest of the society. Now our authorities consider car owners are evil citizens that use cars to have fun carelessly to polute and damage everybody... and happily pays what goverments want them to. But... be careful what you wish because it may turn real... I mean taxes leived to cars have a good thing that is they are only payed by those who use cars... but... if no cars... our governments wont reduce their budgets for sure so they'll increase any other to compensate, so people will end up paying more for "living" in places.
Another thing I'll like to add is that it's very easy to record damage and polution (I wont discuss this, as it's true they damage and polute)... but it's very difficult to record the beneffits they contribute to society, or at least few people care for those stats, but I'm sure the do more good things than allow personal movement freedom.
Regards
@@antonioalonso2986ofc cars will always be needed for people who live in really low populated areas, but here in my country we have these park&ride places where there are massive parking garages with a dedicated tram,bus and sometimes even train stops. It’s for people who want to go to another city so that they can still drive if they need to but once you enter the suburbs of that city you’ll have a easy transfer to multiple tram/bus lines most that come every 5-10 minutes
I love when people say that public transport helps spread disease, like the emissions from a bunch of cars is good for you either.
Yeah but are you breathing in those emissions while you're riding?
@@CaptainAlliance you assume someone is in a car 24/7.
@@aidanlutz8106 and you disregard the fact that public transportation is a vector for disease.
@@CaptainAlliance no, I’m pointing out irony.
Lol what? Being in a car on a street won't harm you, but when you're susceptible to disease standing next to an infected person can kill you.
"long stretchy car" earned you a subscriber.
I'm not a full on "ban cars" guy, and I know the title is semi-clickbait, but driving should be an option and not a necessity
Dubai would collapse in under 30 seconds with this law being applied lmao
@@Maxzes_ Dubai is a fucking joke of a city. Sheikh Zayyed Road is the dumbest shit I have ever seen, a 10 lane highway down the middle of the city??? And all that black asphalt actually raises the local temperature.
That shit needs to just flat out gotten rid of and replaced with a competent transport system. Obviously Dubai couldn't ban cars tomorrow, first they need to build the infrastructure to support it. But they're fucking loaded so I don't see why they can't
@@m.f.3347 > why they can't
Rich people like driving their sports cars down massive 10 lane highways
@@Maxzes_ Good.
THAT I agree with - if it becomes an option NOT a necessity. Car AND public transport.
Better choices - not just more prohibitions.
"Wherever cars have been banned, nobody wanted them back"
Here in my city, the city centre is built in a grid. Not too long ago, there was a road running right through the central square. It was removed in order to make more space for the people and well, the cars could also just go around. And people whined.
Later they banned cars all together from the main road, and left it open for buses and trams, solving all the traffic problems.
where you live mate?
Where do you live?
@@amac2612 Tha's an OSINT challenge for you two
(I left this comment two days ago, seems like it got removed)
@@turtleb01 Madrid?
@@mba849 No
I think I have the solution for the rural population.
The hovercraft! We can get rid of all roads. We will be left with hovercraft gently gliding over untouched idyllic landscapes
hot air balloon
When you said 'Ban Cars' I was put off, but when you said 'from our cities and suburbs' you now have my complete support.
Anyone should be able to own a car, and it helps in rural areas due to wide spaces between, but in cities it is more space efficient to remove roads and use trains.
In suburbs due to low traffic and being the border of city and rural, one car width roads should suffice for use in pedestrian travel and the occasional bus heading city ways or of the occasional car going rural ways, much like the image of a Japanese suburb.
Cities are meant to be dense and cars hinder that, and rural lands are not dense and cars help with the expansiveness.
People really dont value the use of a car but as someone who lives in new york and has no car i can tell you its a horrible thing imagine going shopping and having to take a train or a bus carrying a big or pricey purchase also add the fact you have to take it home from the bus or train stop which is like 4 blocks away carrying a big tv. Thankfully we got cabs but the problem with that is paying 12 to 24 bucks to go shopping which is the usual if the cab driver isnt trying to rip you off from my place to the shopping mall or supermarket. Simply cars are a huge benefit so dont wish for that cause youll regret it. Edit Also add the times you cant get a cab or they aren't available to pick you up and your basically stranded cause you have too much of a load and walking and public transportation is out of the question.
@@stargamer7576 So a car for large items, public transport or a bicycle for everything else. Here in the Netherlands, a lot of people carry their groceries by bicycle, me included. 2 trips a week on the way home from work to pick up my groceries. It only takes half an hour longer than normal to get home and I don't have to waste my time going out specifically for groceries. And that is with me taking a longer way home to pick up my groceries instead of learning the layout of a much closer supermarket. If you have a family, add in a weekly or bi weekly trip by car if needed.
Oh, and then there is of course the option of having large items delivered to your home. You know, the thing that a lot of people already do.
@@stargamer7576 I just pick up some things coming home after work, this way it is so spread out I never have to carry a lot of things.
During rona I had to switch it up a bit and bought a bike trailer and went shopping that way. With my bike I can easily transport 20kg+ even uphill.
@@PhilfreezeCH still buying a car but good for you also i am not a fan of 2 wheel vehicles I've had very bad experience with them i rather have 4 wheels also i can pick up more things and carry my tools in a car and not worrying about other stuff. But just understand that having only bikes is just not gonna happen in our world cause it's really not a convenience specially when you bring others in a car i cant fit multiple people in a bike that's not the case and traveling with a car you can actually leave the city and go explore the us you can literally drive to Canada yes you could take public transport but how you'll go to a place that doesn't have that simply cars are necessary and unless your alternative checks all people's issues and demands it's just not going to happened i could take a plane or a tranin but do you think I want to deal with the TSA, IDs and rude customer service i rather drive and have a nice road trip. Also not to mention the cost which as I said it ain't going to happen cause of corruption.
@@rendomstranger8698 simply I'm done arguing cause I got to the point I don't care I prefer cars cause of the benefits of going where I have to go, the space in it, the safety in driving in a big vehicle and yes I'm aware accidents happen but so can bikes heck your literally the structure of the bike a car at least can take some of the shock unless your speeding, also don't forget the comfort and final why should I be limited to my area i cant freely take the train to a place that has no train and no I'm not biking to that place specially in hot weather. This world is huge. But lastly i just don't like people telling me how to live my life if i prefer a car why should I change that for someone else.
As someone who doesn’t live in a city my first thought was, that would be literally impossible for me, but I hate traffic with a passion haha. Better public transport is needed
Or maybe better city design
It's such an ironic situation that public transport is so _inconvenient_ where I live that I never consider it an option. Taking the bike and car are thus my preferred options. And said public transport won't change until a forceful decision is made to change this status quo.
And when there's only public transport and the fares go beyond inflation no one will be able to travel and we'll all be back in the Dark ages. Enjoy that people.
@@Bonzman seems good to me
@@Bonzman I've been told that's "the free market doing it's job". Working as intended, right?
It's amazing how trains literally solve almost all of our problems regarding urbanization
They don't
Of course yes, with almost infinite capacity and higher speed, but only if transport demand is higher than 500 peoples per hour, ideally more than 10 000/hour (like most subways) , totally breaking down with less than 100 peoples per hour…
That’s how public transport works
More passengers = cheaper tickets= even more passengers= more money = more faster trains = even more passengers…
@@sadqqwwqeq4175 the Netherlands is a very small and densely packed country. The us on the other hand is large and sprawled out. It would cost obscene amounts of money and take decades to build rail lines to replace cars
then you never went by german train. or public transport in general.
@@k00lkidz4 We have so many abandoned railroads that we haven't used since the gilded age. America built a transcontinental railroad within a 6 year frame. The problem is the railroads have been confiscated by the government. I'm sure there would be a lot of companies that'd love to gain access to those railroads and start fresh and a lot of jobs would come from it. There is 0 excuse for not having railroads.
Public transport must improve first. If you just ban cars then people won't be able to commute efficiently
then if you ban cars public transport imrpoves automatically as a huge amount of budget is freed
@@TechConnectDaily i dont think it costs that much to keep up car infrastructure in cities. Also it wouldnt happen instantly and there would be a period of months to years of neither good public transport nor car infrastructure. I just think improving public transport first is better
That is true, you need to slowly transition from cars to public transit so there isnt any public outcry, and to the "it doesnt cost mutch to maintain car infrastructure in cities," its true, but people driving around makes the air very smoggy, makes cities noisy and dangerous, and drives people away which indirectly adds to its cost. good stuff tho :)@@choty7066
With the capitalist oligarchy here in the us, the infrastructure won't be built. We need a complete transformation to the next political economic system: communism.
@@TechConnectDaily It'll take a few or more years to improve public transportation dingus. Renewing a shitty public transport to a better efficient one is costly. It won't improve overnight.
As someone who lives in the middle of nowhere, I would love more trains in my small town than seeing any other cars
Switch to a scooter at least. (Where I live public transit is good so I have no excuse to do that and I love scooters).
Great you’ll have to pay . You think the globalist want you there nope you’ll be moving to a box in the sky and you’ll fucking love it 😂😂😂
Me too! Where I live they removed the train when cars started to get popular… however they did convert the entire line into a bicycle path so that’s a positive!
I’m not a big fan of commuting by public transportation 40 miles a day. Especially with the crimes, drugs and tripped out crazy homeless peeing and vomiting all over said public transportation.
@@americancapitalist9094Looks like you have a homeless problem. No shelters, no support programs, no food and housing. Also looks like you have extreme poverty problem. And a drug problem. And a mental health epidemic. Wait. Let me guess, USA?
Also kids won’t be imprisoned in their homes just because they can’t drive a car. Especially in -sterile hell- suburbs.
"DUDE SUBURBS ARE HELL BRO I HATE COOKIE CUTTER HOUSES BRO" go live in a commie block then
r we living the same life?
This is probably the sole reason why I was so socially dysfunctional as a kid and even now as an adult, and also why I've been dealing with so many health issues growing up as well.
I grew up in suburbs and not having anything fun within reasonable walking distance kinda forces you to stay inside all day, so as a result I've been largely sedentary my whole life which I'm pretty certain is why I'm pretty messed up physically now too.
@@claykh not true, most children in suburbs will make friends in said suburbs and will play with them on the streets
@@weirdwalrus5757 they would probably be safer and have more fun if their street was a pedestrian only street that actually looked nice and not like a dystopian hellhole
I think “let’s drastically reduce the amount of cars” fits the bill better.
No. Cars are retarded. We need to kill them all.
But it is less dramatic
obviously "get rid of all cars" would not include every mobile vehilcle. we still need buses and trucks. also banning cars wound never work in rural areas.
the best approach is to begin transitioning from a suburban-dominated society to urban-dominated society. rural areas will still need to exist. trucks will still need to transport goods.
yes, but click bait
Yeah, cars are great for recreation but there's too many of them driven by people who don't care about that. Cars should be relegated to being owned by responsible car guys and driven on race tracks during weekends.
It's funny to see how so many people here are brainwashed into thinking of cars as the solution rather than the problem that they may generally like the idea but still highlight that one first gotta take care of alternatives. Ironically, alternatives immediately pop up the moment you ban cars.
I crashed my car three months ago and only got it back a month ago after it took forever to get parts for it. Anyway, in those two months that I didn't have it, I had an electric scooter subscription, used public transport and used ridesharing for weekly shopping hauls, etc. I also walked more, feeling healthier and saved money. Since having my car back, it's just a glorified shopping trolley and used for work sometimes, I now much prefer walking, scooting and public transit.
Given you crashed your car, I think being put off driving is a good thing for you....and everyone else's insurance premiums.
Crashing a car can happen to anyone shut the fuck up
But you cant drift a scooter
@@ballsacksniffer420 not with that altitude
@@sipe254 It can, if said person doesn't pay attention.
If a crash isn't your fault that's one thing, but if it is your fault then you're a moron.
I would have added “in cities” because honestly, in the countryside, there is no way to replace cars (and I tried). On the other hand, cities can do car packs outside centers and not have cars inside cities at all. Plenty of other ways to go around there anyways…at least in Europe!
True
Countrysides still need cars, but at least the usage of car is far less than that in cities so there won't be traffic jams in the countrysides. So, I think you have a good point!
That's what trains and buses are for.
Yeah, train and bus line trying to connect every rural and suburban area would be a mess.
As long as it is between two cities (even minor ones) it should be possible to have a Railway go trough villages
130 years ago, my city (which then had a population of only about 25,000) had one of the best urban trolley systems in the state. It was destroyed in the 1930s to make way for... cars. Every time they do major road construction in the older parts of the city, they seem to keep finding sections of those pesky tracks buried underneath the asphalt that yearn to be used again. If those trolleys had been kept in use, I could literally take the trolley from school to work, and then straight home. If we Americans can stop using cars (mostly) in my lifetime, then I will do everything in my power to bring those trolleys (or a like alternative) back to my city.
@green dragon My city is now rapidly approaching 100,000 people. We also have a sister city just across the river that is home to one of the best universities in the country, so the population of the greater urban area is almost 200,000, and it feels like it. Traffic is horrible in some inconvenient places. Traffic on the university side of the river is much worse, though. A trolley system would come in mighty handy these days...
most american non tire using public transport was bought and closed by tire manufacturers.
People still just blame other people for the car use and forget about the bad city planning that made cars mandatory for a lot of people
Malta is a counter example to all of the measures you mentioned:
- we added bike lanes and cars keep increasing
- we made public transport free everybody stopped using it
- they took out one junction the average commute timea doubled
- they added more buses, buses themselves started causing traffic jams
- they banned parking and it just moved the problem to somewhere else
Bus lanes in developed countries are usually a thing, which means they do not get caught up in commutes like cars do.
As a Danish student I have like most of my friends had a driver's licence since I was 18 because that was the norm to get one, but I have never used it for anything other than driving my sister around or picking up my grandma at the hospital. Within the city I live in I bike everywhere to school to work to the shops, when I want to go visit my parents or friends there is a perfect thing called a train that conveniently picks me up and drops me off in the center of the city and I don't have to think while this is happening and can sleep or do work it's almost like magic.
Herude på landet landet er det ret lækkert ikke at skulle GÅ 9 kilometers få at komme i Rema... For så at gå 9 kilometer hjem igen med tunge poser fyldt med mad.
@@missa2855 Idk jeg cyklede 8km til og fra skole igennem de første 2 år af gymnasium det var en meget frisk cykeltur at starte dagen med, men ja hvis man skal tage det store indkøb med hjem så kan det blive noget af en tur.
Denmark is totally flat and tiny, so it’s well suited for cycling and building trains. Norway is the opposite, so I guess it really depends.
@@TheSteinbittmost people still live in cities, so it doesn't matter.
Cars still have utility for people living in the countryside and we will never ban all cars.
@@RedbadofFrisia If a city is built on the side of a hill or feature hilly terrain, almost nobody rides bikes unless it’s electric.
A world where cars are a privilege for enthusiasts and only a necessity for low density and rural areas, and everywhere else can be reached via walking or public transport is a world I wanna live in.
Clean air, dense, quick and easy to navigate cities.
Electric cars for people that need them.
ICE cars only for enthusiasts.
I think it's a much more attainable goal over here in Europe than in the Americas, and we've seen Japans real-world success with public transport.
I'm saying this as a car and motorcycle enthusiast.
As long as enthusiasts like us are still allowed to go out for a drive in the hills, I'd be fine with an urban ban on cars.
Thats basically saying "fuck you" to poor people who want a car. Also haven't the pandemic teach anything regarding how fully relying on public transport is bad thing. If public transport are better, people will use it more than they use cars like in Japan and china. Banning things is just psychopathic bootlicker argument. Why the hell would I want to be on the same train with junkies, fat smelly people, pick pockets and robber when I can use my car?
@@sunshineskystar did *I* say anything about banning them? No.
I don't agree 100% wholesale with everything said in this video but I agree with the idea of better planned walkable cities, and reliable public transport. So that people feel less reliant on cars.
Like I said before, ICE cars for enthusiasts, but EVs (and hydrogen in hindsight) for people that need them. As in that is ideally, who would have what.
I did not mention price point of any of the vehicles so I don't understand how that is a 'fuck you' to poor people specifically.
Point is, if public transport and city planning was better, less people would feel reliant on cars in the relevant areas, therefore saving space, easing congestion, and being better for the environment.
More people either on public transport, or walking.
He wants to ban motorways and rural highways too. I cannot imagine that fun windy mountain roads will be granted exemption.
@@sunshineskystar as someone who is in the poorer class ig i disagree. he literally said in the video that riding a bus is less expensive overall then owning a car. with a car you have to pay insurance, gas/petrol, etc etc. busses and trains are just objectively better in my opinion. if you don't wanna ride around with other people that's a you thing. cars are just straight up bad for the environment with all that gas emissions and car crashes.
I'm a huge car guy, and I support this.
I wouldn't mind commuting by public transport or bicycle
All of the car fun is outside of the cities anyways, there's no joy in commuting by car and standing still in traffic, and the cities get more liveable and cleaner
Yea! Ban cars but also make more tracks for track day! woooooo!
Racing on public roads is dangerous and almost nobody actually wants to have to race around on them. Build up a nicer car culture out in the country-side for all the people who love em and repurpose some of those massive highway sections for racing.
hey look its another person who doesn't live in arizona
Same im not enjoying driving or the price here
AYO HE SPITTIN
@@spoonikle 🤣 I'm pretty sure that's a bad idea. We still need to transport good by trucks.
We don't need to ban cars. We just need better walkable alternatives and then people won't want to drive and sit in traffic anyway.
Big ups for the Casiopea soundtrack. Based
yo mama fard
@@swordman3564 transition
@@jonasrugebregt343 done
I was grooving to the Weathercast track 10 and then bam hit me with Midnight Rendezvous. Wonderful.
YES, good job with that!
I’ve always wanted a train station that connected to different states in America as I would think it to be more faster and enjoyable then driving to said destination
they already exist taut they are expensive and no one used them. cars are way better because you can stop at any moment without having to wait for stops.
@@covfefe1787 That ain't really a plus though nor is it particularly true. If you were going long distance why would you want to stop really? Only reason you may in a car because driving a car long distance sucks, it is boring and tiring. They are only expensive because we already poured massive amounts of money on car road networks which attracts more cars. This creates less demand so to make money it has to be more expensive. Cars are not in demand because they are better in any way but rather we just have the roads already.
Needing to stop in Chicago on your way to Milwaukee to pick up more passengers isn't a con, you still in the green of time saved. Even if it took the same amount of time or even more time because of stops that still isn't a problem. On a train or even a bus to a lesser extent you are not driving, which means you are free to pass the time by working, playing video games or watch a film. It is similar to something like a dishwasher. Sure you may be able to wash you dishes by hand faster but the dishwasher allows you to not have to wash dishes. There will always be people living in population sparse regions traveling from one village to another that need to drive.
@@SirNarax the freedom of movement is the point if someone wants to stop to check out something in the middle of nowhere they can with a car. also cars prevent things getting stolen from you. in crowded trains people have gotten away with rape and even murder. who couldn't hack the metro system and destroy the entire economy for a few hours or what about terrorist attacks like bombs on a train? its happened in Japan before. it doesn’t happen now because more people use cars and cars cant get hacked. Im also against self driving cars I prefer to captain my own ship.
@@covfefe1787 As if you couldn't travel freely if you wanted if trains took over as the primary long distance and short distance transportation? Nobody is seriously suggesting making a car illegal just illegal to drive in certain areas and de-emphasize the car nation wide.
Also the idea that trains and buses are bad because crime CAN happen on them is frankly and objectively, stupid. Fact: Crime happens in cars as well, a lot. Minor and viollent. And if you were worried about crime, crime in a car is easier. With a train you have to smuggle a weapon, the car can be a weapon. Cars can also be a source of crime in a way a train can't. It is well understood that more cars in one place = more road rage. Road rage can be anything from insults to outright assault, there isn't an equivalent on a train.
The danger of "but sometimes". But sometimes people may assault you on the train. But sometimes people might cut you off and press the break and get away with insurance fraud. But sometimes trains might get hacked and this may sometimes have an effect. But every year 40,000 people in the US die from car crashes and only 1,000 die on a train, pretty much all of which from crossings not on the train itself.
Funnier or sadder depending on your perspective and sense of humor. De-emphasizing the car actually is STILL a benefit to you even as someone who would choose to drive. It would make driving much safer for you and in many areas reduce traffic. I live in a village in the middle of nowhere, I know some people need a car and I understand that some people just want a car. Most people don't care and this would be a benefit to everyone.
@@covfefe1787 trains have cabins and security, also you can stop at some intermediary station if you want to go to the middle of nowhere...
ban
luxury yachts and other huge ass diesel sucking ships which we have absolute no need for...
Perhaps you could just refrain from buying one!!
@@buddhikathambugala3472 say it to rich people xD
Except those atrocities are used by the extremely wealthy, which are the ones making the law...
ships are crazy efficient so it isn't exactly that much-needed
@@ranjitsharma5811 yachts and cruise ships aren't efficient
Public transport is incredible
As a proud resident of "Rural Ass Place, Pacific Northwest, USA", this actually sounds not that bad. Seattle and Portland suck ass to travel through. It really irks me that the highways go right through them. Also, trains do have a serious coolness factor, which makes up 50% of my agreement with this video.
Sounds great I guess but I still can't wrap my head around it. What would I do with my car?
@@titusjames4912 sell it and get a cool bike I guess lol
@@yua7469 "SELL THEM TO WHO BEN? FUCKING AQUAMAN?!"
@@warweasel2832 This is, and always has been, one of the best comebacks on the internet.
Portlands public transport is actually really damn good
Cant we appriciate how micheal is so enlightened at age 8?
What?
@@jojosiwasbizzareadventure4743 04:44
I think this movement away from cars will take hold in the next 30-100 years and will be a distinguishing feature of the era. Places like Amsterdam, Tokyo have already shown us a peak into the future.
The big divrence is that people in Tokyo are quiet and well behaved on public transport where in the New York subway some random homeless guy throws his shit around and people blast music
Agreed, I think America is very young and arrogant now, because it has never really seen suffering like other older civilizations have. It is a wisdom born of necessity and experience, both of which seem to be missing in America today.
My city in america is suppost to get a thing from 1 city to another cant remember what its called
We don't really have 30-100 years 😔
@@LennartBiesel The thing is that if you actually invest and care for public transport, it will become attractive to well "normal people". But if public transport in your city is terrible and inconvenient, then the entire middle class will skip it, thus leading to the target audience becoming societys worst which fill the trains and busses (and as a result even more people will avoid them)
As a car guy, this hurt. A LOT. But, as much as I love cars, I completely agree with you
However, I don't know if banning them altogether is a good move
@@thatstocktsx In cities, probably. In rural areas it's a different story
As a Dutchman I highly advise the use of every form of transport besides cars. I've known lots of people, including myself, who are well over the age of being able to get a drivers license but still haven't even bothered to get one. Because apart from laziness, there's no real need. I bike everywhere, and if it's too far there's always a bus, train or metro that goes to my destination somewhat directly. There may be a spare kilometer or two left, but traversing that by foot is quite nice as well. The no-car diet is actually pretty damn good.
im so jealous of the netherlands i wanna live there for these reasons 😢
Your the most densely populated country on earth. Your public transport and biking is just not viable in most countries that are more spread out.
Man y’all lucky it takes 2 hours to bike to the nearest town where I live
Have fun riding a bike 4 miles in Las Vegas when it’s 118° outside
@@communism_is_wrong7167
Walk? Or just don't travel if it's that hot
As someone who lives in the rural area, I really don't mind driving to a city where I park and have to use public transportation (if it was funded more and is everything you said). I really HATE driving in cities!! Hate hate hate.
yeah and if parking your cars in or around cities was safer. too many thieves
@@skeetus Exactly. Whatever leads to a safer experience, I'm with it.
Same here lol
Yes 😌☝️ and people using cars out in Bozeman Montana probably don't have a massive carbon footprint 🤷♂️😭😂 and you REALLY do need a heavy, big SUV im certain parts of the country.
I grew up on an Indian Rez amd I get why people NEED trucks and SUVS. But now I live in NYC, and there is no reason for people to be having cars just because the way they do. 😒 it's 2md rent just to park them here in NYC
I live in a city during college. I try not to use my car unless necessary I hate driving and drivers are insane. When I go home I have to drive (rural area) and it’s much easier because I’ll go miles without seeing another car.
I agree that certain things about cars are dangerous, but for someone who lives in the middle of nowhere, it's not necessarily a viable thing to give up. I can see how major cities that might be a benefit, but in the countryside there is no viable way to get rid of cars.
EDIT: I want to just add that I drive over an hour to go to work I use the turnpikes and highways for efficiency. If they did not exist, my drive to work would be over 2 hours. That isn't happening. I got a tesla and a eco boost truck. I am fine with just that.
You do realize that the video completely agrees with your comment?
@@inv41id it actually doesn't and somehow expects us to get a train network
@@comet.x 9:20
I live in a not so big town (240k ppl) and one of my frustration with my city is that both the roads and the bus system kinda sucks. But we could get a good bus system if the prefecture actually invested in it, but no one cares about this around here. My country (Brazil) has an infrastructure ENTIRELY based on road ways. There are barely any trains and public transportation is pretty bad everywhere. The mindset here is still pretty car-friendly because we have this old fashioned notion that more cars = more Progress, and that having your own car is essential and it shows your status.
Exactly. Cars are the best form of transportation.
Its a self reinforcing issue.
Cars suck. Always have.
From the beginning they blame the issues with cars on lack of car infrastructure.
Infrastructure gets built, and induced demand happens as it always did, and now the roads are as clogged and as unsafe as ever.
And then this failure is spun as not having enough car infrastructure, and so the cycle begins.
@@lefishe5845 XD
When I went to Japan in 2018 I got terrified from the train network, then on my way back to my hotel room in Iidabashi after shopping in Shinjuko I realized how this massive sprawling city was more connected than any other city I have ever lived in.
a concrete jungle that grew faster than wood based jungle
Lol Japan shuts down every night . Even shinjuku shuts down. Trains cannot operate 24/7, even the self driving JR trains shut down for maintenance of rails and trains.
@@henrylo6773 but they maintain it very quicky
sydney trains shuts down and...
we still have annoying weekend trackworks
@@yukko_parra They shut down usually from 1-4 AM. which esentially kills the night clubs and bars if applied to America.
@@henrylo6773 Not necessarily, you definitely don't want to be running multi car trains when the demand is just not there to fill them. But you can easily run single car trains or you know just the rubber tire equivalent of a single car train ie a bus. If it was not for the still considerable night time demand being taken up by taxis simply because travellers are not given a choice there would be more than enough demand for night busses.
Look. I know the second one was bad. But banning a classic Pixar series just doesn't make sense.
why yes, algorithm, I WOULD like to have my opinions repeated back to me in a way that's funny by a guy with a nice voice
lmao this
To get people to use public transit, lets make our cities a living hell for car drivers. The way he said it was what did it for me. 8:20
@@michaelbujaki2462 that's exactly what a carist would say,smhing so hard rn.
@@GreenGoblinCoryintheHouse I happen to like driving.
@@michaelbujaki2462 okay sure you do bud
As a German I was angry when my Dutch friend wasn’t impressed when I had my drivers license at 17
He’s 24 now and still has no license
24 and still has no license it's the same if an 24 year old wears diapers or not know to walk
As a German you should be proud of your legendary Motorsport heritage. It’s a culture of kinetic energy, its movement as a religion.
My mother always complained about how much i would spend on catching the bus. I paid £120 a month to get a bus pass that covered most journeys i needed to make. So i bought a car. The insurance alone costs more per month than my bus fare
Well the positive is you can choose any destination without waiting for a bus and carry a lot of goods and supplies to home in a single go.
@@Zed-Corps I'd rather take the bus because I can relax while traveling and you don't have to worry about fuel. The buses are frequent so I don't need a schedule, and if I need something big I'll get it delivered online.
@@thetimelapseguy8 in my area bus services are getting worse, they recently remove a line that directly goes to my job and near many markets.
They claim not enough riders were use it, which is nonsense since every time I rode it was always packed.
Got my self a decent vehicle for that reason.
@@Zed-Corps You're right to get a car in that case, that was a shitty thing for the bus company to do.
To be honest, I still find that very expensive for public transports, not to mention the example he gave in the video, I can only deduce that public transports are indeed very expensive in the UK. Where I live in France I can take all public transports in my city with 40€ per month (it's 25€ for students and 10€ for unemployed people...), but I guess it's probably state-funded.
I love cars, especially Japanese sports cars. My family owns several cars and I like driving them around (cause our public transportation is shit).
But when I visited Japan and experienced how amazingly convenient their trains were, I came back from my trip thinking I would gladly give up all our cars and my chance of ever owning one if we had a bus and train system as good as theirs.
In my neighborhood, we have almost as many cars per household as there are people living in them. Because it's either that or suffer public transit.
If cars were banned inside cities only, people who live in rural areas wouldn't be fucked and we would also get to keep enjoying driving for leisure. Would love to see the day this becomes a thing
@@manaspradhan8041
No more deliveries in cities, no more elderly or disabled people. Everyone with a job on the other side of town is fucked. Can't buy anything you can't carry for 4km in your hands...
@@MrCmon113 not exactly sure which of these is not possible with public transport(other than delivery services for the last one lol). literally no one in my family drives a car and it hasn't affected our life in the least. even if mom or dad could drive we wouldnt have carried a tv home in our car lmfao
So you hate cars then? Cars are not just means of transporting your ass to boring job
Yeah I believed the same thing, until I sold my old appartment and got a new one. Wouldn't have made it without the car.
I live in Houston Texas and I need my car to do basically anything. The sidewalks are super old, dilapidated, dangerous, and a lot of times completely nonexistent. It’s crowded and the city and companies here cut corners that most places in the USA could not get away with; which is why we constantly flood.
We have no pride in the city because there are no clear boundaries between city and the “areas” around that city that would normally be towns in any other part of the country. Plus we are all so busy working with nothing to do but drink alcohol and watch our sport teams lose. We do not value or even acknowledge any of the nature there is here and we heavily pollute our bayous and drainage ditches, and even our drinking water.
If we had a motto it would be “corruption, crime, all for a dime”. I just made that up now but it’s actually true.
What you are talking about in this video sounds so foreign to me, that my first instinct is to disagree with you, even though you’re completely right. If you look on Google maps with no labels, Houston is a grey blemish on the face of the planet. A sprawling spiderweb of concrete. Since we are one of the fastest growing areas in the country, I hope they at least implement the concepts you have presented here, and hopefully we can start doing the right thing if we can’t fix what we’ve already done.
Go Astro!!! And what do you mean by 'we' Houston is not a city known for its drinking
Yep, Houston is entirely built around cars. The city is filled with car centric infrastructure with little walkable areas or public transportation. It’s truly one of the worst planned and ugliest cities I’ve ever seen.
I'm Italian and have been in Houston in 2015, it didn't look so much grimy, if you really want to see a city with the most ineffecient public transport and worst architectural urban sprawl I would invite you to see Rome. Roads are naturally tight and mostly occupied with parked cars, sidewalks and streets alike are riddled in craters, bike lanes are mostly non existent, people generally drive erratically and park in illegal positions, worsening the traffic aspect, in the worst hours you can literally take hours to travel a dozen of miles. There are no freeways cutting trough the city, forcing the traffic to drive trough every residential area. On top with this the public transport company is like hundred of millions dollars in debt, and the only thing keeping it from defaulting is the City giving them taxpayer money, despite them having a legal monopoly. There are only two main subway lines which don't connect many parts of the city, and the bus service is laughably disfunctional, buses almost never arrive on schedule and are mostly dirty or falling apart, many times in this years Buses have been literally burst into spontaneous combustion. On top of all this the Workers Union (which unfortunately in Italy are far more powerful than in any other country) protest and refuse to work almost once or twice a month. Rome is literally a quarter the size of London or Paris and it feels like living in the worst part of Shangai for how much ridiculously hard is to live here...
@@leonhaze-4202 how does this stuff happen? Lol
It’s funny too because Rome is so ROMANticized. That’s probably the epidemiology of the word.
@@BeanDar It happens because our form of government is even more fucked up than yours. Basically the tax burden on the economy is 45% of the GDP and the Public Debt is at 160% of GDP instead.
In this scenario add that Italy's political power is fractioned in Countless Territorial autonomies and Governmental subdivisions. We have the Regions, provinces, Prefects, Comunes and municipalities, each of them have their own bureaus and tax fees.
Now consider that every public service is a state monopoly managed by the most lazy and incompetent bureaucrats and useless public employees; who are impossible to fire because sustained by Workers Unions who have incredible political power upon political parties. Add very high levels of corruption and Criminal Organizations, a complicated mess of codes, laws and regulations, and a electoral system who takes power away from the citizens to give absolute legislative power to TWO chambers of Parliament.
Then if you want to change a law the two chambers have to do *twice* the same job, making the process of ratifying laws twice as slow...
Let all this sink in and understand why public transport is at third world efficiently levels...
Let’s intentionally live like it’s 1890
Back when slavery was legal in Syria?
Banning cars in cities would actually be a great idea. In suburbs? I'm less convinced. In rural areas like where I live? Not a chance! Great video!
You can make suburbs that work with public transit, but the American style suburbs that use winding road to make it intentionally difficult to walk in and out of the neighborhood don't with too well. Not Just Bikes has some good content around that point, at one point he uses an example of a suburb that was built around a public transit stop at the center
That’s the issue with American suburbs, they are designed for cars when they don’t need to be
As long as it doesn't mean the elimination of garage space it's good plan. Public transport and walking is fine for short trips and regular trips, but the moment you want to do a weekend trip away, or visit some weird corner of the city busses don't run to, pubic transport is not practical.
American Suburbs need to be bathed in fire.
@@1TW1-m5i that's just a problem with bad public transport
4:43 what an exquisite slideshow, such captivating options
Got some good powerpoint97 vibes
I sold my car 3 months ago and it felt great being able to save $500-$600 a month (bi weekly payments, insurance and gas altogether). I get some exercise walking to the train station or bus stop and I only pay $110 for a monthly transit pass. I dont miss having a car at all
Have fun being stuck in your city for the rest of your life
Then take your free dose of diseases people in the bus might have
What car did you drive
@@mergat2970 2013 Hyundai Veloster
@@bellotaco damn public transportation must be nice
“But cars are fun to drive”. Yeah for a lot of people building cars and driving them is fun. And has always been a thing. Same with planes, and bikes, and motorcycles, and go karts. Purpose built areas for these vehicles have existed since the beginning of their creation.
“What about off roading or camping?” Same thing. A little more freedom to drive like they did 100 years ago - that still exists today.
“But deliveries!” Hmm special logistics vehicles using preplanned routes to local businesses centres that transport those goods to your door by foot, bike, scooter, delivery bus, train, plane, helicopter, drone. Highways specific to commercial travel was the main reason the highways were built in the first place.
freak
Okay i seriously dont agree with you , first of all , your examples are , not the best to say the least...
Planes: this example is wierd af, becouse you are saying that planes have an "purpose built areas" the only thing that could classify as are airports but planes doesnt use that to travel around, that would be comparable to gas stations for cars, planes use air as the road , so thats pretty wrong
Bikes: you mean bike lanes right? Thats littreally serves the same purpose of car roads , only for diffrent vehicles.
Go kart: you are seriously comparing the small ahh race track that go karts has to higways and everywhere else a car can go?
Like i said , what you are doing is unfair to people who like cars, yeah some people like it for the speed but most of them like the journey itself! You know , going A to B. Seeing the diffrent things on the way
You could say "oh just use a train"
But thats still not fair for people who *just want to drive*
Okay, couple things…
1- I am not against the idea of just driving as an experience. That was the main novelty of automobiles when they were first created, and cars are very popular. However, they are managed very differently than all other modes of transportation.
A list of drawbacks for how cars are used:
Lots of cities and towns are too car centric instead of people centric.
Cars take up so much space because of issue #1
There are too many unnecessary roads in some countries (the USA is a prime example)
Some countries have worse infrastructure and/or places not designed for automobile use causing more problems
Lots of places in the world have inadequate communion services (rail, bus, ferry).
There aren’t enough race tracks in some places.
2- Your fixation on my (admittedly) very condensed statements does not seem to have put any thought into what point I was trying to make:
TL;DR (and you should have read but who cares now) - Cars are fine. You can build them, collect them, race them, and drive them. But having a multitude of issues based on the living conditions of our society; I have concluded that there are too many cars out there. The roads themselves are designed poorly in large populated areas, the way to fix these issues has been around since they were first invented and there has been a large lack of care or effort put into minimizing the large environmental impact they put on everything over the last 50 years- despite safety and efficiency improvements.
@@zacharyjeffares8158good point, i agree that cities shouldnt be car dependent , but when i read your comment , i assume you agree with this video , which says : *ban cars* not reduce them , not make them less of a need but wipe them out all together.
Maybe you should specify that you dont want all cars to get banned becouse when you dont say that its easy to assume you agree with banning cars
As a college student living through a gas crisis, economic collapse, and my car being one pothole away from leaving this plane of existence, I thoroughly agree.
god I hate college kids, south park had it right on the dot hoooooly shit
It would solve pollution issues, the gap between the rich and the poor (due to lower expenses for the average person), traffic, high healthcare costs due to car accidents, and open up a ton of space for human habitation in cities. It would quite literally drastically improve city life in every way. Why they decide not to is beyond me but how society views it, but that can change.
Same, I’m a college student as well. Was recently in a car accident and other than the pain, PTSD and other associated shit, the idea of being free from a car payment and gas prices feels amazing. I can actually start saving some money instead of being in a constant stalemate financially.
@@PanelVulture the only point you provided is a concern that isn't really applicable anymore: the pandemic. Having lunatics on trains is frankly less concerning than in a car. Cars are weapons on their own, even more detrimental than on a public train, which can easily have security measures in place to hinder any notable harm. Consider the high death and injury tole of car accidents proportional to public transportation. It's a staggering comparison in favor of public transportation.
Please elaborate as to how public transportion benefits the rich only and is an illusion to the poor. How are vehicles, which the poor already can't efficiently afford, comparatively more beneficial than public transportation (which they already are forced to use but at decreased quality due to lower funding)?
It's curious to note that the rich are then benefited by using cars whereas the poor are forced to use public transportion. The thing is, that is already the case, so it is an irrelevant point.
"I can't afford this car so nobody should"?
As much as I love driving and working on cars, this video is spot on. I really wish the US were more connected by rail, the Amtrak leaves something to be desired. I also can't stand people thinking Teslas are the answer. The production of those things are terrible for the environment, they look god awful, and everyone who drives one drives like ass.
Tesla owners are massive dumbasses. Thinking that regenerative breaking means that they next have to replace their brakes.
Lithium mining rapes the planet and not to mention alot of the energy used to power EVs comes from fossil fuels or nuclear energy. Diesel vehicles are by the cleanest in my opinion
the first i can agree the rest no
@@nimnim3311 bro do your research electric vehicles are just moving the pollution somewhere else sure E.V. might not produce CO2 but the electricity that power those cars do along with lithium mines being very polluting I'd be cool with electric vehicles but there main selling point is a clean environment when it actually does the opposite
@@tommycarrizal1656 i agree but they do look nice and not all of them are bad drivers
Sadly with the US, we need to first remove our policies surrounding zoning. Because of these policies even if we wanted to do this it would still keep jobs so far away from our homes.
Funny how the same party that pushes for zoning also complains about suburbs.
@@josephang9927 because they think industrial zones means factories when in fact it means stores and restaurants, and shops. Heavy industrial zones are the factories and deserve to be zoned
@@josephang9927 because suburbs are shit
@@josephang9927 lol not even bruh, it's not a party problem both of them do it, it's more of a nimby issue, like here in CA dems are trying to do zoning and housing reform to alleviate the housing crisis but fucking nimbys keep blocking the bills, i mean I understand why Republicans do it right? Because it goes with their belief system but democrat nimbys do it too like fucking hypocrites, they literally want to have their cake and eat it too.
So in my experience it's a class issue, because here the democrat government is trying to do actual reform but it almost always ends up being blocked by nimbys who don't want poor people living next to them.
I hope we never ban cars.(seriously)
Ironically, I watched this video after learning to drive a car for the first time. I do think driving for the sake of getting around car dependent areas and driving for leisure, especially for car fans, are very different things though.
Absolutely, Im totally willing to give up driving in the cities if it makes cities more pleasant and I can drive my classic car and my sports car everywhere else
Same, also don't know a single person who anyways enjoys driving every single day to work.
@@manaspradhan8041 Still beats taking public transit to work, that’s for sure.
@@dlazo32696 no way lmfao, maybe if your public transit is shit. American?
Lol I am still taking driving lessons as well good luck dude. Those guys don't understand you can't do anything productive without personal vehicle in the countryside.
If public transport was accessible enough, even people with disabilities, like me, wouldn't need any car to move around a city. But the sad truth is that, at least in my hometown Bratislava, Slovakia, this is still a big issue. So car is more comfortable for me atm.
We still need to carry things.
Weirdly enough I always found the public transportation there to be pretty good, especially for a city that's almost 20km across. Bus line 21 is the goat
Ofc 😭☝️ i think in cases like yours an allowance should be made. I feel like everyone else having to use mass transit would also make it much cheaper for people who REALLY need cars to buy them. ☝️
theres also parts of America where people genuinely need trucks and other large, robust, offroad vehicles to safely live and work.☝️🤷♂️
If everyone who can, HAS to give up their car, I feel like the people who need to have one won't be a problem and I think 🤔 there'd be too few people driving to cause the same problems w cars as before
@@bacicinvatteneaca You're in luck then! Buses and trains are pretty good at carrying things.
@@notstarboard And with level platforms, you can take pushcarts with you.
I appreciate the points raised in this video but honestly I couldn't imagine how I could function without a car. I play in the drums and practice 3 times a week and have to go to gigs with all my gear the sum of which is over 50kg. There's no way I'd be able to take public transport to freely move about the town with my gear like I already do with my Car.
Psst! Maybe just have a small electric car for all that. The point is reducing car use not cutting it. I also do cauffeuring because public transport is prohibitively expensive where I live. I drive my car and take 4 other people who are also going in my direction of travel. That way, I save money on gas and also have the convenience of a car when I get to my destination
@@PelleCristi a Small car it won't fit my necessities.
@@PelleCristi small cars dont fit a set of drums, and fuck EVs, the Congolese people will thank you. Though good job on the ride sharing, that's the real solution BritMonkey should've proposed in this video alongside public transit
mixed used neighbourhoods so you dont have to go far all the time
Also: Car rental services are super awesome, you can get an SUV really cheap whenever you need it.
ua-cam.com/video/OObwqreAJ48/v-deo.html
as someone who lives in the middle of nowhere my quality of life has gotten so much better since i got a car i can see friends it also gives me great autonomy and im a much happier person then i was before car bans are feesible in places like Amsterdam and maybe even London but when you are out of that its a lot less feesible
also i would really like to hear where all the money needed to improve transport to rationalise banning cars?
The infrastructures is paid through general taxes, I don't live in a city I live in rural Wales and don't need a car for 99% of travels.@@AKelly_102
I'm in a small UK city out in the suburbs and it's quite easy to go car free here. Buses are every 10 minutes at the worst day time frequency or every 6 minutes on busy bus routes. Buses to the hospitals are free too. Then you get our tram system that can take you from one side of the city in an hour or 20-30 minutes from any end station to the centre, which is about the same as a car but you don't have to pay $3 an hour for parking. The cycling lanes are getting better too but need some work.
@@kev2034 im in the sticks and buses run every 2 hours if you are lucky lmao
Replace “since I got a car” in your comment with “since I got a tram stop next to my house and a nice bicycle” and I agree completely!
8:57
What do you mean a 'belief'. Cycling IS patriotic. It's not something you can or can't believe in, it's just a fact.
"types of trainsportation, made by a 8 year old"
i legit died on that part, also
BAN CARS
Daniel Pinheiro come to brazil lol
Ah yes lets jusy ban cars and see how fast the world turns into absolute chaos
Michael Timmy Boy, GO TO NON-CAR BRAZIL!!
Ban cars people when they have a cardiac arrest and no ambulance came :
I don’t leave in a rural or semi rural place do you? It show
Why Trains are better than Cars:
-Trains go Choo Choo (Cars don't)
-They can be really fast
-Are more interesting to look at
-And more safer and efficient than a car
They use iron wheels to drive on steel. That’s like the least possible friction after magnetic levitation. A car has much more friction and is so inefficient.
Why trains are really fucking stupid:
The maintainance and construction costs are astronomical.
Cars are an extremely effiecient and flexible means of getting people around. Anti-csr ideology is ridiculously annoying and focused in on a handful of city centers and completely ignored that even in cities with extremely good transportation, there are still more drivers than public transit users, and it's the poorer people living in the periphery who need cars more than the wealthy people who can afford to live near public transit
@@flakgun153 but when it comes to energy,space and time efficiency which are three things that we’ll need more and more the train is clearly superior.
If we want to abandon the car then public transport needs to be everywhere either way
Why trains are worse - can't pick up all my belongings and go halfway across the country on something I already own, can't suddenly see something interesting and go visit it, have to follow a time table
Trains are awful. Everyone has to be at the same place for departure, at the same time and also be traveling to the same location for it to be useful which isn't what every commuter needs. Trains can't accommodate every commuters needs.
lets not ban cars, just make them not be a necesity
Also banning cars would enable more people from poorer circumstances to get a better job because they are able to travel further without being able to afford a car
totally the opposite I say!
poorer people will live further away from a city due to insane renting/buying cost. This mean that the poor people have to travel/ spend more time travelling opposite of what a rich person living close to the work area do. The disparity will increase.
i don't think "banning cars" will improve the travel distance for people without cars, only "improving/growing public transport" will do that.
@@aziza9861 Well, with a more efficient and used public transport system, traveling won't be such a big issue, honestly. Heavy use of public transport would make it even cheaper, and there can be subscription services on public transport, which lowers the monthly cost of transport more. In any case, is cheaper than owning and driving a car. For poor people especially, owning a car is a massive burden, that will only keep them poorer. The cost of gas, the taxes, the reparations when necessary... most people would be much well off if they didn't give in to the stupid idea that you need to own a car to have a better life.
what
@@DonVitoCS2workshop it will because infrastructure won’t be so car centric anymore and focus public transport
I’ve had to walk everywhere by necessity, and it’s honestly been a blast. It also gets significantly easier in just a couple weeks. What’s great is the muscle you gain also makes times where you would’ve walked anyway much easier. Now you can go enjoy parks and nature and literally anything that requires legs without the constraint of weak muscles. Also if you walk with a straight back it strengthens your core too so you become much more fit and it’s nice when you look better by doing something you have to do anyway.
Based
you have brain damage, walking doesn't gain you musles. I honestly don't feel bad you got bullied at school.
It’s such a blast walking around in Las Vegas when it’s 118° outside
walking is so great. it grounds me n makes me feel alive n human. like im going on an adventure. it feels like im using my body exactly how it was meant to be used. To move! Haha… i just hate cars. I hate how they’ve just dominated the world.
@@communism_is_wrong7167 then don't live there.
The cost of a train ticket in the UK is eye-watering.
It is pretty bad, but if roads charged you a cost per use enough to pay for construction and maintenance it would be similarly dire. The issue is that roads often get subsidies when trains don’t. A better solution is to subsidise roads less and trains more, and charge private car users (who could be using a train or something instead) a higher charge to help subsidise the roads for the lorries and buses that need to use it.
@@shioyoutube9041 no it wouldn’t
@@shioyoutube9041 That seems a bit weird too me. I don't live in the U.K. but even in the U.S. public transport is heavily subsidized.
London, ON to Toronto, a 2 hour journey is around $50, less than a tank of gas, it sounds great but that becomes a problem when you want to travel with a friend. We need cheaper trains everywhere
So are the Swiss train tickets. Many Swisses never take the train because of that absurd price.
nah, i want to hear that SUPERCHARGED V8 DOING REDLINE AAAAAAAAAAAA WHAT THE FUCK IS A KILOMETER 🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🦅🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅
GRAHAAHHHHH GOD BLESS AMERIKAI LOVE CAR INFESTED HELLHOLES OORAH🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸🦅🦅🦅🦅🔫🔫🔥💥💥🇺🇸🇺🇸🇺🇸
Greetings from Germany in 2022 - our public transport as it is right now can definitely NOT carry that weight right now. What did our government learn from this? "Offering every citizen a ticket for only 9 Euros has shown us that a lot more people use public transport if prices are reasonable...but our current public transportation system needs a giant overhaul...We should stop offering them tickets for 9 Euros"
Thanks, German government.
9 Euro ticket war einer der besten Regierungsprojekte seit ich denken kann! Hoffentlich kommt es in einer Form zurück und hoffentlich versteht die Politik bald, dass die Zukunft nur im Öffentlichen Nahverkehr liegen kann. Immerhin ist es hier nicht ganz so schlimm wie in den USA...
With what monies. You’re broke and this winter you’ll probably have no heat think how awesome it will be when your loved freeze to death . You’ll feel so good more carbon removed
@@punchcat0736 atleast they arent on the verge of a market crash and have housing crisis and have reasonably priced stuff unlike the god blessing america
@@punchcat0736and how will cars change that fact?
the virgin car owner vs the chad public transport user
The virgin public transportation user VS the chad I worked my ass off to buy my car and love driving it (Hummer H2).
@@Bishounen ok virgin
Not the virgin car owner because it is necessary in emergencies but a dude who wants more lanes.
Lets not start a war shall we.
How can the car owner be virgin and the public transport user be a chad?
The public transport user is a cuck who is forced to rely on others for transportation while the car owner is self made
6:30 - let's also not forget that at that price, the average car still spends more than 90% of the day parked
How is that your problem?
Never thought about this.
@@ireminmon it's my problem because it looks UGLY, and i hate ugly looking things.
Yeah that's exactly like saying "I don't go in vacation because I pay rent"
@@ireminmon Cars take up space that could be used for better purposes. Imagine a city filled with parks and playgrounds rather than parking lots.
I don’t care about the environment I care about my car doe
Don't poop yourself dude
Making public transport better is also really good for people who can't drive, I can remember as a child I wanted to go somewhere but couldn't since my parents didn't have time to drive me, it was too far to just walk there, cycling can be very tiring, especially uphill, and buses weren't often enough.
Getting rid of cars almost requires a redesign and rezoning in the US. It's 100 where I am and walking to the store isn't viable. Even worst, my the supermarket I like is 21 min by car but 1hr 13 min by bus. Not to mention it requires a transfer in an area I wouldn't hang around at night.
Not almost, it DOES require a redesign and rezoning in the US. Mixed use zoning would allow grocery stores (as well as convince stores, cafes, and bars) to open up WITHIN neighborhoods. Redesigning streets to cater to pedestrians would improve the trip on foot (or even bike), as well as promote small business opening up along people's paths.
Your suburb is probably so empty with density that once the cars are gone there will be heaps of room for new corner stores to open up. The market will accomodate. It would help if commercial and residential zoning laws were all considered the same while the transition is taking place.
Well even climate scientists have recommended that we need to start thinking about land de-development anyways. Cities like Phoenix and Las Vegas simply don't need to exist and would benefit from future abolition, along with the swaths of suburban sprawl regions in the US. This would greatly decrease our country's infrastructure costs, and de-developed land could be designated as federally-owned national park land. At the very least, we should probably immediately halt the building of any new suburban areas (like Portland did). The cities that we would keep would of course get rezoned and undertake things like urban freeway removals to procure land that can be used to increase density, once rezoning does occur though, a lot of organic changes will take place themselves as developers come in and build higher-density buildings.
This could be accomplished, or at least seek to decrease the number of people living in environmentally unfriendly environments via government buyout programs. Tons of people in the US are literally trapped living in places they don't want to because no one will buy their home.
@@benw3864 if the predicted demographic bust occurs then these things might happen. But a huge chunk of these transit dreams circle around convincing people to adopt a level of density and lack of ownership that is unwelcome by most.
Death to the suburbs
Imagine how many calories the entirety of the US would lose if everyone just rode bikes
Oh gosh, now I can imagine Beefy American Legs
Yes and imagine how empty the cities would be without all the elders, families and people with leg injuries. Only students in every urban area in the country. Wow, how amazing!
@@aprilpower1158 Whats your point dude
To be ironic you have to make sense and I literally cant tell what bullshit you're talking about 💀💀💀💀💀
it is a 47 minute bike to nearest walmart...
@@ka1ebsauce Blame that on American Zoning Laws. If America kept with Mixed Zoning, you wouldn't have Groceries and Necessary Commercial Areas to be several miles away from you.
enjoy not being able to get any services to your house I guess (plumbers, electricians, ect).
well then cars should be only reserved for those people
@@AncientAlyx there may not be a road to your house if we build cities without cars in mind.
@@tmplOS of course there will be roads, for things like busses, they will just be smaller
@@AncientAlyx there will be roads. but there's no guarantee that there will exist a road to every persons house.
You know they can stop near your house, then walk right?
"Heh, what a fun shitpost title. It's a bit long for a shitpost, but I'll check it out."
*10 minutes later.*
We should actually ban cars though, this man is right.
No he is not right. The perfect system is a system that allows both public transport and cars to coexist.
No
yes
Kinda no
1. it will destory many jobs and companies around cars
2.cars don't kill people, Bad drivers do
3.Making more bus will still cerates pollution
4. If we switched to more bus that still means there will be trafic
5. Driving is fun
(Up to opinion)
6. You have to sit to others in a subway or bus
(Up to opinion)
@@hystericalJ I agree!
Here in my 3rd world country public transport is a miserable thing to go through. Crowded, loud, sticky, expensive, irregular timetables, understandably unpleasant employees. I'd rather be stuck in traffic with some nice music in the comfort of my car than inside a sardine can.
This will never change because politicians will exclusively line their own pockets instead of investing even 5% of that into anything usable by the common people.
Most of these problems are CAUSED by other cars on the road.
Q: Why do you think there's so little funding is going into your public transport?
A: Probably because your local govt' and transport agency is prioritising building car-focused infrastructure
Q: Why are your buses always late
A: Probably because of the above answer but also because they're stuck in traffic due to so many cars on the road.
Also, keep in mind how selfish and entitled it is to think that just because you are rich, you are allowed to make everyone else's life around you worse.
> crowded
not enough demand -> not enough offers
> loud
wear headphones
> sticky
????
> expensive
not enough demand -> expensive prices
> irregular timetables
I assume you mean delayed buses? guess who creates traffic jams. otherwise, not enough demand -> low quality transit
> understandably unpleasant employees
guess why they're pissed off
Come on, the USA isn't a third-world country!
@@mineswah4363let me repeat and emphasize that the politicians are corrupt and politicians and rich people who pay them travel by cars so they will prioritize that.
It's even worse for a woman because perverts are everywhere and in a packed public transport perverts take advantage of that and women cant even complain as these perverts pretend they dont do it on purpose.
@@flzrian3623 So what's your solution? you've said why you think the problems exist, the main one being "not enough demand". also I like ">loud - wear headphones" like ah yes, if I just ignore the issue it goes away, magic, also these are called 3rd world counties for a reason...
I love cars, I love driving, but I'd give it up in a heartbeat if my city had good public transit and an alternative to getting in my car. I hate the fact that in order to get a bag of potatoes from 800 meters away from my home, I'm basically condemned to sit in my car and travel to it. I wish we had bike infrastructure and I could just bike to the store. I hate suburban sprawl. Send help.
Very true. I am a huge car enthusiast, I own 2 cars, but I would still love to live in a place where I don't have to drive to get around.
Go to Europe then and live in some cramped up apartment
@@deserteagle4745 This is one of the worst takes i've ever seen about cars in my life.
@@deserteagle4745 Haha. Hahahahahahahaha. You have no idea what kind of amazing flats we have both in countries with high and low home ownership.
Gladly, my apartment is already tiny. It’s expensive to survive
This probably is a good idea in heavy populated areas or cities. But not where poeples works are far away, with no public transit, and walking and biking would take forever
Then we should increase public transport, he proposed it in the video too
Trains, busses, and more trains.
@@nuterra9143 good luck getting a train network big enough and sustainable enough for the entirety of Canada. especially for the prairies
@@polipod2074 good luck getting public transport out to those in the countryside
@@polipod2074 not economically feasible, imagine how many new lines would have to be made, and the frequency of the buses/trains, to serve the needs of the countryside on the same level of efficiency of the cities, for exemple.
Also, the factor that in rural areas, everything that you need in urgency is too far away, be it hospital, or police, or supermarket.
A car is a must when you know that grandpa may be bitten by a venomous snake once again and there is no way in hell an ambulance is getting here, and back, in able time.
(yes, that is personal experience)
To begin with I thought "No way that's ridiculous and public transport sucks" but you actually convinced me.
I can't use public transport because it's crap where I live.
Brazilian?
@@atrevolutionwiththomaspain68 Nah, I'm British
redshift 739 Br*tish
@@redshift739 where in britain?
It's incredibly dumb to try and ban cars everywhere. Outside of cities and towns public transport just does not, and cannot work. Distances are too large, travel is too infrequent, and there's no simple reasonable way to connect each point. Ban cars in cities and towns. For cross country travel make trains more feasible. Then for rural areas use electric cars.
I've unironically wanted this for a while now
Bro failed his driver's license test so he wants revenge.
haha yeah
or the channel owner is a 15 year old and put his father to talk 🤣🤣🤣🤣🤣